You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> on 2007/05/31 18:53:59 UTC
Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0 certified
and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is not an
oncoming train but the other side :) With that we're also at the
point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of May. Given
that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested what do folks
think about the name of the release and what will it contain? Also,
when is a branch appropriate?
I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include
Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a work
in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as certified
and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for performance,
footprint, etc.
It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at this
time as we finish the other work.
What do others think?
Matt
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be
and next steps
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Matt,
Sounds good. We should coordinate with the other projects to be sure we
can get stable versions of their artifacts as well.
Jeff
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0 certified and
> it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming
> train but the other side :) With that we're also at the point of
> cutting a milestone since we're at the end of May. Given that all
> possible assemblies won't be fully tested what do folks think about the
> name of the release and what will it contain? Also, when is a branch
> appropriate?
>
> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include Tomcat,
> CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a work in progress
> but allows us to claim a specific release as certified and allows us to
> continue knocking off the corners for performance, footprint, etc.
>
> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at this time
> as we finish the other work.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Matt
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
Yep. We should.
What say we branch 2.0-M6 now for both Tomcat and Jetty (end of a
month, regular milestone release) and then branch again soon after
certification for Tomcat alone with an appropriate label (say
geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-beta, or geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-certified )
?
Cheers
Prasad.
On 5/31/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0 certified
> and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is not an
> oncoming train but the other side :) With that we're also at the
> point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of May. Given
> that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested what do folks
> think about the name of the release and what will it contain? Also,
> when is a branch appropriate?
>
> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include
> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a work
> in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as certified
> and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for performance,
> footprint, etc.
>
> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at this
> time as we finish the other work.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Matt
>
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be
and next steps
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
Agreed, let's keep releasing early and often.
I'll start looking into the release notes, will shoot a separate email on this.
Cheers!
Hernan
Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0 certified and
>> it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming
>> train but the other side :) With that we're also at the point of
>> cutting a milestone since we're at the end of May. Given that all
>> possible assemblies won't be fully tested what do folks think about
>> the name of the release and what will it contain? Also, when is a
>> branch appropriate?
>>
>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include
>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a work in
>> progress but allows us to claim a specific release as certified and
>> allows us to continue knocking off the corners for performance,
>> footprint, etc.
>>
>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at this
>> time as we finish the other work.
>>
>> What do others think?
>
> I think this makes sense. We need a release to reference for
> certification but there are probably enough issues in other areas that
> we wouldn't want to make it a full blown release. Using M6 let's us get
> something out there for folks to work with and also communicates that
> there are still some rough edges.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be
and next steps
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0 certified and
> it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming
> train but the other side :) With that we're also at the point of
> cutting a milestone since we're at the end of May. Given that all
> possible assemblies won't be fully tested what do folks think about the
> name of the release and what will it contain? Also, when is a branch
> appropriate?
>
> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include Tomcat,
> CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a work in progress
> but allows us to claim a specific release as certified and allows us to
> continue knocking off the corners for performance, footprint, etc.
>
> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at this time
> as we finish the other work.
>
> What do others think?
I think this makes sense. We need a release to reference for
certification but there are probably enough issues in other areas that
we wouldn't want to make it a full blown release. Using M6 let's us get
something out there for folks to work with and also communicates that
there are still some rough edges.
Joe
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
My bad, I was asking two questions but was not clear. One was
branching (which was really a discuss on when do we do that) and the
other was release naming. After re-reading the thread I see the
error of my ways and repent in dust and ashes.
On Jun 2, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> Maybe I misunderstood your initial message but I thought you wanted to
> create 'branches/2.0' branch and not 'branches/2.0-M6' branch.
> Branching for M6 as usual sounds fine to me.
>
> Jarek
>
> On 6/2/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> Branching for a 2.0-M6 is a short lived process and basically what
>> we've done over the past few months. I'll branch, fix up / clean up
>> and andy patches there will be small and easily managed in two
>> branches. This isn't intended to be a long lived maintenance
>> problem. We've been there and done that and don't plan on returning.
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>>
>> > One thing I would be in favor of is branching only when we are
>> > actually ready for 2.0 final. Otherwise, we will have two trees to
>> > commit our patches to and keep in synch. And that is always
>> > problematic.
>> >
>> > Jarek
>> >
>> > On 6/1/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> >> I like Kevan's suggestion. We ship the assemblies we normally
>> build.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 01/06/2007, at 3:56 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0
>> >> >>> certified and it seems like the light at the end of the
>> tunnel is
>> >> >>> not an oncoming train but the other side :) With that
>> we're also
>> >> >>> at the point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of
>> >> >>> May. Given that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested
>> >> >>> what do folks think about the name of the release and what
>> will
>> >> >>> it contain? Also, when is a branch appropriate?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would
>> include
>> >> >>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a
>> >> >>> work in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as
>> >> >>> certified and allows us to continue knocking off the
>> corners for
>> >> >>> performance, footprint, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why not also a jetty assembly? Unless there are really
>> >> >> significant problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple
>> days and
>> >> >> getting both platforms out at the same time.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am also in favor of a simultaneous release of Jetty and Tomcat
>> >> > assemblies.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Gianny
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at
>> >> >>> this time as we finish the other work.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> What do others think?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on
>> >> >> that I would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever
>> >> >> (milestone, snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards
>> >> >> compatible. It affects how default subjects and run-as
>> subjects
>> >> >> are constructed and will finish the JACC plugability work.
>> I'll
>> >> >> try to get something out today describing how it works in more
>> >> >> detail.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> thanks
>> >> >> david jencks
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Matt
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
Maybe I misunderstood your initial message but I thought you wanted to
create 'branches/2.0' branch and not 'branches/2.0-M6' branch.
Branching for M6 as usual sounds fine to me.
Jarek
On 6/2/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> Branching for a 2.0-M6 is a short lived process and basically what
> we've done over the past few months. I'll branch, fix up / clean up
> and andy patches there will be small and easily managed in two
> branches. This isn't intended to be a long lived maintenance
> problem. We've been there and done that and don't plan on returning.
>
> On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>
> > One thing I would be in favor of is branching only when we are
> > actually ready for 2.0 final. Otherwise, we will have two trees to
> > commit our patches to and keep in synch. And that is always
> > problematic.
> >
> > Jarek
> >
> > On 6/1/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >> I like Kevan's suggestion. We ship the assemblies we normally build.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 01/06/2007, at 3:56 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0
> >> >>> certified and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is
> >> >>> not an oncoming train but the other side :) With that we're also
> >> >>> at the point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of
> >> >>> May. Given that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested
> >> >>> what do folks think about the name of the release and what will
> >> >>> it contain? Also, when is a branch appropriate?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include
> >> >>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a
> >> >>> work in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as
> >> >>> certified and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for
> >> >>> performance, footprint, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why not also a jetty assembly? Unless there are really
> >> >> significant problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple days and
> >> >> getting both platforms out at the same time.
> >> >
> >> > I am also in favor of a simultaneous release of Jetty and Tomcat
> >> > assemblies.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Gianny
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at
> >> >>> this time as we finish the other work.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What do others think?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on
> >> >> that I would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever
> >> >> (milestone, snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards
> >> >> compatible. It affects how default subjects and run-as subjects
> >> >> are constructed and will finish the JACC plugability work. I'll
> >> >> try to get something out today describing how it works in more
> >> >> detail.
> >> >>
> >> >> thanks
> >> >> david jencks
> >> >>
> >> >>> Matt
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be
and next steps
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Hi Matt,
I completely agree with your take. This has been how we have done this
in the past. This is just M6, not final, and its what we have been
doing. So you have my vote for making the branch now...I think its a
great time to do it.
Jeff
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Branching for a 2.0-M6 is a short lived process and basically what
> we've done over the past few months. I'll branch, fix up / clean up and
> andy patches there will be small and easily managed in two branches.
> This isn't intended to be a long lived maintenance problem. We've been
> there and done that and don't plan on returning.
>
> On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>
>> One thing I would be in favor of is branching only when we are
>> actually ready for 2.0 final. Otherwise, we will have two trees to
>> commit our patches to and keep in synch. And that is always
>> problematic.
>>
>> Jarek
>>
>> On 6/1/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>>> I like Kevan's suggestion. We ship the assemblies we normally build.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 01/06/2007, at 3:56 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0
>>> >>> certified and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is
>>> >>> not an oncoming train but the other side :) With that we're also
>>> >>> at the point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of
>>> >>> May. Given that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested
>>> >>> what do folks think about the name of the release and what will
>>> >>> it contain? Also, when is a branch appropriate?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include
>>> >>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a
>>> >>> work in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as
>>> >>> certified and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for
>>> >>> performance, footprint, etc.
>>> >>
>>> >> Why not also a jetty assembly? Unless there are really
>>> >> significant problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple days and
>>> >> getting both platforms out at the same time.
>>> >
>>> > I am also in favor of a simultaneous release of Jetty and Tomcat
>>> > assemblies.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Gianny
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at
>>> >>> this time as we finish the other work.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What do others think?
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on
>>> >> that I would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever
>>> >> (milestone, snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards
>>> >> compatible. It affects how default subjects and run-as subjects
>>> >> are constructed and will finish the JACC plugability work. I'll
>>> >> try to get something out today describing how it works in more
>>> >> detail.
>>> >>
>>> >> thanks
>>> >> david jencks
>>> >>
>>> >>> Matt
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Branching for a 2.0-M6 is a short lived process and basically what
we've done over the past few months. I'll branch, fix up / clean up
and andy patches there will be small and easily managed in two
branches. This isn't intended to be a long lived maintenance
problem. We've been there and done that and don't plan on returning.
On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> One thing I would be in favor of is branching only when we are
> actually ready for 2.0 final. Otherwise, we will have two trees to
> commit our patches to and keep in synch. And that is always
> problematic.
>
> Jarek
>
> On 6/1/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> I like Kevan's suggestion. We ship the assemblies we normally build.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
>>
>> > On 01/06/2007, at 3:56 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0
>> >>> certified and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is
>> >>> not an oncoming train but the other side :) With that we're also
>> >>> at the point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of
>> >>> May. Given that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested
>> >>> what do folks think about the name of the release and what will
>> >>> it contain? Also, when is a branch appropriate?
>> >>>
>> >>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include
>> >>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a
>> >>> work in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as
>> >>> certified and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for
>> >>> performance, footprint, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Why not also a jetty assembly? Unless there are really
>> >> significant problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple days and
>> >> getting both platforms out at the same time.
>> >
>> > I am also in favor of a simultaneous release of Jetty and Tomcat
>> > assemblies.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Gianny
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at
>> >>> this time as we finish the other work.
>> >>>
>> >>> What do others think?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on
>> >> that I would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever
>> >> (milestone, snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards
>> >> compatible. It affects how default subjects and run-as subjects
>> >> are constructed and will finish the JACC plugability work. I'll
>> >> try to get something out today describing how it works in more
>> >> detail.
>> >>
>> >> thanks
>> >> david jencks
>> >>
>> >>> Matt
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> One thing I would be in favor of is branching only when we are
> actually ready for 2.0 final. Otherwise, we will have two trees to
> commit our patches to and keep in synch. And that is always
> problematic.
>
> Jarek
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be
and next steps
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
+1
-Donald
Jarek Gawor wrote:
> One thing I would be in favor of is branching only when we are
> actually ready for 2.0 final. Otherwise, we will have two trees to
> commit our patches to and keep in synch. And that is always
> problematic.
>
> Jarek
>
> On 6/1/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> I like Kevan's suggestion. We ship the assemblies we normally build.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
>>
>> > On 01/06/2007, at 3:56 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0
>> >>> certified and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is
>> >>> not an oncoming train but the other side :) With that we're also
>> >>> at the point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of
>> >>> May. Given that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested
>> >>> what do folks think about the name of the release and what will
>> >>> it contain? Also, when is a branch appropriate?
>> >>>
>> >>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include
>> >>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a
>> >>> work in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as
>> >>> certified and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for
>> >>> performance, footprint, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Why not also a jetty assembly? Unless there are really
>> >> significant problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple days and
>> >> getting both platforms out at the same time.
>> >
>> > I am also in favor of a simultaneous release of Jetty and Tomcat
>> > assemblies.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Gianny
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at
>> >>> this time as we finish the other work.
>> >>>
>> >>> What do others think?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on
>> >> that I would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever
>> >> (milestone, snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards
>> >> compatible. It affects how default subjects and run-as subjects
>> >> are constructed and will finish the JACC plugability work. I'll
>> >> try to get something out today describing how it works in more
>> >> detail.
>> >>
>> >> thanks
>> >> david jencks
>> >>
>> >>> Matt
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
One thing I would be in favor of is branching only when we are
actually ready for 2.0 final. Otherwise, we will have two trees to
commit our patches to and keep in synch. And that is always
problematic.
Jarek
On 6/1/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I like Kevan's suggestion. We ship the assemblies we normally build.
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
>
> > On 01/06/2007, at 3:56 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>
> >>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0
> >>> certified and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is
> >>> not an oncoming train but the other side :) With that we're also
> >>> at the point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of
> >>> May. Given that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested
> >>> what do folks think about the name of the release and what will
> >>> it contain? Also, when is a branch appropriate?
> >>>
> >>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include
> >>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a
> >>> work in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as
> >>> certified and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for
> >>> performance, footprint, etc.
> >>
> >> Why not also a jetty assembly? Unless there are really
> >> significant problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple days and
> >> getting both platforms out at the same time.
> >
> > I am also in favor of a simultaneous release of Jetty and Tomcat
> > assemblies.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gianny
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at
> >>> this time as we finish the other work.
> >>>
> >>> What do others think?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on
> >> that I would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever
> >> (milestone, snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards
> >> compatible. It affects how default subjects and run-as subjects
> >> are constructed and will finish the JACC plugability work. I'll
> >> try to get something out today describing how it works in more
> >> detail.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> david jencks
> >>
> >>> Matt
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I like Kevan's suggestion. We ship the assemblies we normally build.
On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
> On 01/06/2007, at 3:56 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0
>>> certified and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is
>>> not an oncoming train but the other side :) With that we're also
>>> at the point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of
>>> May. Given that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested
>>> what do folks think about the name of the release and what will
>>> it contain? Also, when is a branch appropriate?
>>>
>>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include
>>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a
>>> work in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as
>>> certified and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for
>>> performance, footprint, etc.
>>
>> Why not also a jetty assembly? Unless there are really
>> significant problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple days and
>> getting both platforms out at the same time.
>
> I am also in favor of a simultaneous release of Jetty and Tomcat
> assemblies.
>
> Thanks,
> Gianny
>
>>
>>>
>>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at
>>> this time as we finish the other work.
>>>
>>> What do others think?
>>>
>>
>> I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on
>> that I would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever
>> (milestone, snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards
>> compatible. It affects how default subjects and run-as subjects
>> are constructed and will finish the JACC plugability work. I'll
>> try to get something out today describing how it works in more
>> detail.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>> Matt
>>
>
>
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Posted by Gianny Damour <gi...@optusnet.com.au>.
On 01/06/2007, at 3:56 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0 certified
>> and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is not an
>> oncoming train but the other side :) With that we're also at the
>> point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of May. Given
>> that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested what do folks
>> think about the name of the release and what will it contain?
>> Also, when is a branch appropriate?
>>
>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include
>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a
>> work in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as
>> certified and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for
>> performance, footprint, etc.
>
> Why not also a jetty assembly? Unless there are really significant
> problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple days and getting both
> platforms out at the same time.
I am also in favor of a simultaneous release of Jetty and Tomcat
assemblies.
Thanks,
Gianny
>
>>
>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at this
>> time as we finish the other work.
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>
> I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on that
> I would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever (milestone,
> snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards compatible. It
> affects how default subjects and run-as subjects are constructed
> and will finish the JACC plugability work. I'll try to get
> something out today describing how it works in more detail.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>> Matt
>
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 31, 2007, at 1:56 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0 certified
>> and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is not an
>> oncoming train but the other side :) With that we're also at the
>> point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of May. Given
>> that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested what do folks
>> think about the name of the release and what will it contain?
>> Also, when is a branch appropriate?
>>
>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include
>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a
>> work in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as
>> certified and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for
>> performance, footprint, etc.
>
> Why not also a jetty assembly? Unless there are really significant
> problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple days and getting both
> platforms out at the same time.
I'm good with an -M6. I would think we release our normal assemblies.
We'd just advertise which assemblies had passed CTS. As new assembly
combinations pass CTS, we can release new Mx's...
>
>>
>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at this
>> time as we finish the other work.
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>
> I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on that
> I would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever (milestone,
> snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards compatible. It
> affects how default subjects and run-as subjects are constructed
> and will finish the JACC plugability work. I'll try to get
> something out today describing how it works in more detail.
Understand your concern. I'll look for your description. And will
work to help you achieve it. However, I'm perfectly fine with a
milestone release which is incompatible with the next milestone (or
full) release.
IMO, there are a lot of people (yourself included) who have been
doing some great work in Geronimo, OpenEJB, CXF, etc to get us to
this point... IMO, they'll deserve a day in the sun to celebrate a
bit. But after that *one* day in the sun ;-), we can continue working
on resolving additional issues (e.g. Jetty), and work on polishing
off a 2.0 release.
--kevan
Re: Nearing testing complete ... what should the release name be and next steps
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0 certified
> and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is not an
> oncoming train but the other side :) With that we're also at the
> point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of May. Given
> that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested what do folks
> think about the name of the release and what will it contain?
> Also, when is a branch appropriate?
>
> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include
> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a work
> in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as certified
> and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for performance,
> footprint, etc.
Why not also a jetty assembly? Unless there are really significant
problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple days and getting both
platforms out at the same time.
>
> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at this
> time as we finish the other work.
>
> What do others think?
>
I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on that I
would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever (milestone,
snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards compatible. It
affects how default subjects and run-as subjects are constructed and
will finish the JACC plugability work. I'll try to get something out
today describing how it works in more detail.
thanks
david jencks
> Matt