You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> on 2006/10/31 05:32:50 UTC
1.2 Fit and Finish
In a typical Geronimo release we tend to spend a significant amount
of time in what I'll call the "Fit and Finish" phase. This involves
tying up loose ends such as log levels, tools L&F, startup times,
licenses and so on. Basically, the phase includes fixing all the
nits that cause people to vote -1 for a release (BTW no vetos in a
release vote).
Please, take a moment and respond to this email with any items you
feel should be cleaned up before we release the software. That way
we can hopefully get these items out in the open and addressed while
we are finishing the TCK testing. Please note that just because an
item is mentioned doesn't mean it must be completed before a
release. The only thing required for a release it to successfully
pass a vote of the PMC, so if the item is critical to you, spend a
few minutes fixing it.
With any luck we should be able to have the server ready to ship
about the same time we finish the TCK testing.
-dain
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Its gone.
--jason
On Nov 28, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2006, at 7:11 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> So, can we nuke all_changes.log and branches/dead-1.2 now?
>
> Yes. I say remove 'em.
>
> Vamsi,
> Thanks for looking through those changes.
>
> --kevan
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 28, 2006, at 7:11 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> So, can we nuke all_changes.log and branches/dead-1.2 now?
Yes. I say remove 'em.
Vamsi,
Thanks for looking through those changes.
--kevan
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
So, can we nuke all_changes.log and branches/dead-1.2 now?
--jason
On Nov 28, 2006, at 11:53 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> Kevan,
>
> I have looked at all the files modified in the revision 389206.
> All the functionality from that revision is intact in trunk and
> branches\1.2. That revision is no longer relevant and
> all_changes.log can now be removed.
>
> --vamsi
>
> On 11/28/06, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 18, 2006, at 2:41 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
> > Is anyone gonna look at this?
> >
> > I'd really like to nuke this branch and the all_changes.log (and
> > pending-merge-log.sh).
> >
> > Lets not go another week with this unresolved... plz.
> >
> > --jason
> >
> >
> > On Nov 9, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> >
> >> I went thru all_changes.log and for each remaining item marked "Not
> >> Merged" I verified that it is either already in trunk or is
> >> unnecessary. I marked r389206 as merged because I think all the
> >> parts
> >> that trunk needs are there but if someone has a min could you
> please
> >> double check it?
>
> Vamsi,
> Looks like you recently hit a lot of the files that 389206 updated.
> Perhaps you could have a look to verify everything looks good?
>
> --kevan
>
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
Kevan,
I have looked at all the files modified in the revision 389206. All the
functionality from that revision is intact in trunk and branches\1.2. That
revision is no longer relevant and all_changes.log can now be removed.
--vamsi
On 11/28/06, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2006, at 2:41 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
> > Is anyone gonna look at this?
> >
> > I'd really like to nuke this branch and the all_changes.log (and
> > pending-merge-log.sh).
> >
> > Lets not go another week with this unresolved... plz.
> >
> > --jason
> >
> >
> > On Nov 9, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> >
> >> I went thru all_changes.log and for each remaining item marked "Not
> >> Merged" I verified that it is either already in trunk or is
> >> unnecessary. I marked r389206 as merged because I think all the
> >> parts
> >> that trunk needs are there but if someone has a min could you please
> >> double check it?
>
> Vamsi,
> Looks like you recently hit a lot of the files that 389206 updated.
> Perhaps you could have a look to verify everything looks good?
>
> --kevan
>
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 18, 2006, at 2:41 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Is anyone gonna look at this?
>
> I'd really like to nuke this branch and the all_changes.log (and
> pending-merge-log.sh).
>
> Lets not go another week with this unresolved... plz.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>
>> I went thru all_changes.log and for each remaining item marked "Not
>> Merged" I verified that it is either already in trunk or is
>> unnecessary. I marked r389206 as merged because I think all the
>> parts
>> that trunk needs are there but if someone has a min could you please
>> double check it?
Vamsi,
Looks like you recently hit a lot of the files that 389206 updated.
Perhaps you could have a look to verify everything looks good?
--kevan
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Is anyone gonna look at this?
I'd really like to nuke this branch and the all_changes.log (and
pending-merge-log.sh).
Lets not go another week with this unresolved... plz.
--jason
On Nov 9, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> I went thru all_changes.log and for each remaining item marked "Not
> Merged" I verified that it is either already in trunk or is
> unnecessary. I marked r389206 as merged because I think all the parts
> that trunk needs are there but if someone has a min could you please
> double check it?
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
> On 11/7/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> Just be aware that any of the changes that affect config.xml or other
>> non-Java files (keystores or whatever) probably need to be applied to
>> the TCK configuration as well.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
>>
>> On 11/7/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> > On 11/7/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > OK I'll take a look and start cranking through the list.
>> Aaron please
>> > > raise a flag if you want me to hold off.
>> >
>> > No, be my guest -- clearly I haven't gotten around to it. :)
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Aaron
>> >
>>
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
I went thru all_changes.log and for each remaining item marked "Not
Merged" I verified that it is either already in trunk or is
unnecessary. I marked r389206 as merged because I think all the parts
that trunk needs are there but if someone has a min could you please
double check it?
Best wishes,
Paul
On 11/7/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> Just be aware that any of the changes that affect config.xml or other
> non-Java files (keystores or whatever) probably need to be applied to
> the TCK configuration as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 11/7/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> > On 11/7/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > OK I'll take a look and start cranking through the list. Aaron please
> > > raise a flag if you want me to hold off.
> >
> > No, be my guest -- clearly I haven't gotten around to it. :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aaron
> >
>
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Just be aware that any of the changes that affect config.xml or other
non-Java files (keystores or whatever) probably need to be applied to
the TCK configuration as well.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 11/7/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> On 11/7/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK I'll take a look and start cranking through the list. Aaron please
> > raise a flag if you want me to hold off.
>
> No, be my guest -- clearly I haven't gotten around to it. :)
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 11/7/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK I'll take a look and start cranking through the list. Aaron please
> raise a flag if you want me to hold off.
No, be my guest -- clearly I haven't gotten around to it. :)
Thanks,
Aaron
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 11/3/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> I'm not surprised. Can you merge them?
done
> Also, Aaron has many merges
> left in the dead-1.2 branch that may affect the console. You can see
> them by running the following command in the server/trunk directory:
>
> grep "Not Merged" all_changes.log
OK I'll take a look and start cranking through the list. Aaron please
raise a flag if you want me to hold off.
Best wishes,
Paul
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
I'm not surprised. Can you merge them? Also, Aaron has many merges
left in the dead-1.2 branch that may affect the console. You can see
them by running the following command in the server/trunk directory:
grep "Not Merged" all_changes.log
-dain
On Nov 2, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> I checked out the weekly build and found some problems that were fixed
> in the 1.1 branch. One is the tomcat logging that was fixed in rev
> 415233 and another was the database portlet problem fixed in rev
> 412804. I'm also suspicious that the problem Jason found in the JMS
> server portlet could be fixed by a pending merge.
>
> Paul
>
> On 11/2/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>> I just uploaded a new weekly release here:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/dist/geronimo/unstable/1.2-r470164/
>>
>> Please spend a few minutes trying it out.
>>
>> -dain
>>
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
I checked out the weekly build and found some problems that were fixed
in the 1.1 branch. One is the tomcat logging that was fixed in rev
415233 and another was the database portlet problem fixed in rev
412804. I'm also suspicious that the problem Jason found in the JMS
server portlet could be fixed by a pending merge.
Paul
On 11/2/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> I just uploaded a new weekly release here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/dist/geronimo/unstable/1.2-r470164/
>
> Please spend a few minutes trying it out.
>
> -dain
>
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
I just uploaded a new weekly release here:
http://people.apache.org/dist/geronimo/unstable/1.2-r470164/
Please spend a few minutes trying it out.
-dain
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 11/2/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>
> > OK I had a hunch something might break but I figured I would ask
> > anyway just in case there was a way. For now I can probably
> > manufacture a reasonable test env on my local machine but as the
> > server gets more componentized as plugins I think it will become more
> > important to test the system as a whole before releasing. To me that
> > means base server, plugins, and plugin repos bits are all tested in
> > the same configuration that a user will see when the release is
> > announced.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. We already have a hard enough time
> release Geronimo because of all the bits we throw into the "server"
> bucket. I'm concerned that if we decide to delay the server to make
> sure plugins run, we will never get a release out.
>
> -dain
I see your point. It comes down to how critical the plugin
infrastructure is to the release, and right now that's debatable.
Let's just continue to innovate and see where that road takes us :-)
Best wishes,
Paul
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> OK I had a hunch something might break but I figured I would ask
> anyway just in case there was a way. For now I can probably
> manufacture a reasonable test env on my local machine but as the
> server gets more componentized as plugins I think it will become more
> important to test the system as a whole before releasing. To me that
> means base server, plugins, and plugin repos bits are all tested in
> the same configuration that a user will see when the release is
> announced.
I'm not so sure about that. We already have a hard enough time
release Geronimo because of all the bits we throw into the "server"
bucket. I'm concerned that if we decide to delay the server to make
sure plugins run, we will never get a release out.
-dain
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
OK I had a hunch something might break but I figured I would ask
anyway just in case there was a way. For now I can probably
manufacture a reasonable test env on my local machine but as the
server gets more componentized as plugins I think it will become more
important to test the system as a whole before releasing. To me that
means base server, plugins, and plugin repos bits are all tested in
the same configuration that a user will see when the release is
announced.
BTW, we're close to the point where you can install the framework
assembly and then use the CLI to slurp in the admin console and all
its dependencies from the 1.2 plugin repo at
http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins/geronimo-1.2/. Looking forward
I'm excited about the new possibilities this opens up for us in how we
release.
Best wishes,
Paul
On 11/1/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> It isn't really possible to publish a "1.2" release like that. It
> would break lots of stuff (like maven) that assumes that there will
> only ever be a single 1.2 release. Why can't you test against a 1.2-
> timestamp release?
>
> -dain
>
> On Nov 1, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>
> > One of the activities to coordinate when finalizing the release is
> > updating the 1.2 plugin repository catalog at:
> > http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins/geronimo-1.2/geronimo-plugins.xml
> > to point at a repo where the 1.2 artifacts are published instead of
> > the snapshot repo it currently points at. For testing purposes it
> > would be ideal to build Geronimo as version "1.2" (not "1.2rc1" or
> > "1.2.timestamp" or something like that) and publish the 1.2 artifacts
> > to a maven2 repo during the release candidate cycle. That would allow
> > us to test the plugin system in pretty much the exact state it will be
> > when 1.2 is released. Is that feasible? If not then we may need to
> > work out an alternate approach where the repository catalog gets
> > updated after the release goes out and the artifacts get published.
> > That makes me a little nervous though since it will be too late to
> > make changes to the server if something doesn't work right.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 10/30/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> >> In a typical Geronimo release we tend to spend a significant amount
> >> of time in what I'll call the "Fit and Finish" phase. This involves
> >> tying up loose ends such as log levels, tools L&F, startup times,
> >> licenses and so on. Basically, the phase includes fixing all the
> >> nits that cause people to vote -1 for a release (BTW no vetos in a
> >> release vote).
> >>
> >> Please, take a moment and respond to this email with any items you
> >> feel should be cleaned up before we release the software. That way
> >> we can hopefully get these items out in the open and addressed while
> >> we are finishing the TCK testing. Please note that just because an
> >> item is mentioned doesn't mean it must be completed before a
> >> release. The only thing required for a release it to successfully
> >> pass a vote of the PMC, so if the item is critical to you, spend a
> >> few minutes fixing it.
> >>
> >> With any luck we should be able to have the server ready to ship
> >> about the same time we finish the TCK testing.
> >>
> >> -dain
> >>
>
>
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
It isn't really possible to publish a "1.2" release like that. It
would break lots of stuff (like maven) that assumes that there will
only ever be a single 1.2 release. Why can't you test against a 1.2-
timestamp release?
-dain
On Nov 1, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> One of the activities to coordinate when finalizing the release is
> updating the 1.2 plugin repository catalog at:
> http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins/geronimo-1.2/geronimo-plugins.xml
> to point at a repo where the 1.2 artifacts are published instead of
> the snapshot repo it currently points at. For testing purposes it
> would be ideal to build Geronimo as version "1.2" (not "1.2rc1" or
> "1.2.timestamp" or something like that) and publish the 1.2 artifacts
> to a maven2 repo during the release candidate cycle. That would allow
> us to test the plugin system in pretty much the exact state it will be
> when 1.2 is released. Is that feasible? If not then we may need to
> work out an alternate approach where the repository catalog gets
> updated after the release goes out and the artifacts get published.
> That makes me a little nervous though since it will be too late to
> make changes to the server if something doesn't work right.
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
>
> On 10/30/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>> In a typical Geronimo release we tend to spend a significant amount
>> of time in what I'll call the "Fit and Finish" phase. This involves
>> tying up loose ends such as log levels, tools L&F, startup times,
>> licenses and so on. Basically, the phase includes fixing all the
>> nits that cause people to vote -1 for a release (BTW no vetos in a
>> release vote).
>>
>> Please, take a moment and respond to this email with any items you
>> feel should be cleaned up before we release the software. That way
>> we can hopefully get these items out in the open and addressed while
>> we are finishing the TCK testing. Please note that just because an
>> item is mentioned doesn't mean it must be completed before a
>> release. The only thing required for a release it to successfully
>> pass a vote of the PMC, so if the item is critical to you, spend a
>> few minutes fixing it.
>>
>> With any luck we should be able to have the server ready to ship
>> about the same time we finish the TCK testing.
>>
>> -dain
>>
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
One of the activities to coordinate when finalizing the release is
updating the 1.2 plugin repository catalog at:
http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins/geronimo-1.2/geronimo-plugins.xml
to point at a repo where the 1.2 artifacts are published instead of
the snapshot repo it currently points at. For testing purposes it
would be ideal to build Geronimo as version "1.2" (not "1.2rc1" or
"1.2.timestamp" or something like that) and publish the 1.2 artifacts
to a maven2 repo during the release candidate cycle. That would allow
us to test the plugin system in pretty much the exact state it will be
when 1.2 is released. Is that feasible? If not then we may need to
work out an alternate approach where the repository catalog gets
updated after the release goes out and the artifacts get published.
That makes me a little nervous though since it will be too late to
make changes to the server if something doesn't work right.
Best wishes,
Paul
On 10/30/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> In a typical Geronimo release we tend to spend a significant amount
> of time in what I'll call the "Fit and Finish" phase. This involves
> tying up loose ends such as log levels, tools L&F, startup times,
> licenses and so on. Basically, the phase includes fixing all the
> nits that cause people to vote -1 for a release (BTW no vetos in a
> release vote).
>
> Please, take a moment and respond to this email with any items you
> feel should be cleaned up before we release the software. That way
> we can hopefully get these items out in the open and addressed while
> we are finishing the TCK testing. Please note that just because an
> item is mentioned doesn't mean it must be completed before a
> release. The only thing required for a release it to successfully
> pass a vote of the PMC, so if the item is critical to you, spend a
> few minutes fixing it.
>
> With any luck we should be able to have the server ready to ship
> about the same time we finish the TCK testing.
>
> -dain
>
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Oct 31, 2006, at 4:25 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I would say that the startup and shutdown sequences should not show
> any Log4J log output or stack traces, tested under both JDK 1.4 and
> JDK 1.5.
I fixed some of the amq logging problems today (their package name
changed so log4j needed updating). Yet again, ActiveMQ is logging
exceptions at shutdown which are not real problems. I sent an email
to the amq list but who knows if they will fix them.
> Also, all current functionality in all portlets in the
> console should work as expected. And the deploy tool should be able
> to deploy, undeploy, and redeploy all J2EE module types, with no
> module ID in the plan, a versionless module ID, a module ID with only
> an artifact ID, or no plan at all.
Are you going to verify these? If you are, please do it sooner
rather then later.
-dain
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I would say that the startup and shutdown sequences should not show
any Log4J log output or stack traces, tested under both JDK 1.4 and
JDK 1.5. Also, all current functionality in all portlets in the
console should work as expected. And the deploy tool should be able
to deploy, undeploy, and redeploy all J2EE module types, with no
module ID in the plan, a versionless module ID, a module ID with only
an artifact ID, or no plan at all. Those are the things I can recall
bothering me in the "fit and finish" stage.
It would be great to reduce the startup time too. :)
Thanks,
Aaron
On 10/31/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> In a typical Geronimo release we tend to spend a significant amount
> of time in what I'll call the "Fit and Finish" phase. This involves
> tying up loose ends such as log levels, tools L&F, startup times,
> licenses and so on. Basically, the phase includes fixing all the
> nits that cause people to vote -1 for a release (BTW no vetos in a
> release vote).
>
> Please, take a moment and respond to this email with any items you
> feel should be cleaned up before we release the software. That way
> we can hopefully get these items out in the open and addressed while
> we are finishing the TCK testing. Please note that just because an
> item is mentioned doesn't mean it must be completed before a
> release. The only thing required for a release it to successfully
> pass a vote of the PMC, so if the item is critical to you, spend a
> few minutes fixing it.
>
> With any luck we should be able to have the server ready to ship
> about the same time we finish the TCK testing.
>
> -dain
>
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Nov 1, 2006, at 7:14 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2006, at 10:47 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, fixing the startup time of the web console config under
>>> jetty (see GERONIMO-2507) is a must fix...
>>
>> Does that mean you are going to fix it?
>
> Happy to, when I have enough time. Does that mean you are happy to
> ship with the current behavior?
I find the current behavior acceptable and I would not vote against
the release.
-dain
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Oct 31, 2006, at 10:47 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> IMO, fixing the startup time of the web console config under jetty
>> (see GERONIMO-2507) is a must fix...
>
> Does that mean you are going to fix it?
Happy to, when I have enough time. Does that mean you are happy to
ship with the current behavior?
--kevan
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> IMO, fixing the startup time of the web console config under jetty
> (see GERONIMO-2507) is a must fix...
Does that mean you are going to fix it?
-dain
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Oct 30, 2006, at 11:32 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> In a typical Geronimo release we tend to spend a significant amount
> of time in what I'll call the "Fit and Finish" phase. This
> involves tying up loose ends such as log levels, tools L&F, startup
> times, licenses and so on. Basically, the phase includes fixing
> all the nits that cause people to vote -1 for a release (BTW no
> vetos in a release vote).
>
> Please, take a moment and respond to this email with any items you
> feel should be cleaned up before we release the software. That way
> we can hopefully get these items out in the open and addressed
> while we are finishing the TCK testing. Please note that just
> because an item is mentioned doesn't mean it must be completed
> before a release. The only thing required for a release it to
> successfully pass a vote of the PMC, so if the item is critical to
> you, spend a few minutes fixing it.
>
> With any luck we should be able to have the server ready to ship
> about the same time we finish the TCK testing.
As I've mentioned previously, all source files must comply with the
new ASF source header and copyright notice policy (see http://
www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html). I created GERONIMO-2537 to
track this...
Appear to be some scripts that can be used to automatically make the
updates (see the FAQ). However, they seem to be accessible only by
ASF Members?!!
I'd also suggest that we run RAT (http://code.google.com/p/arat/). To
audit the compliance of Geronimo to Apache release requirements and
best practices... RAT was developed (at least in part) to aid
incubating Apache projects.
IMO, fixing the startup time of the web console config under jetty
(see GERONIMO-2507) is a must fix...
--kevan
1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Oct 30, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On 10/31/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>> In a typical Geronimo release we tend to spend a significant amount
>> of time in what I'll call the "Fit and Finish" phase. This involves
>> tying up loose ends such as log levels, tools L&F, startup times,
>> licenses and so on. Basically, the phase includes fixing all the
>> nits that cause people to vote -1 for a release (BTW no vetos in a
>> release vote).
>
> What do you mean by this BTW?
I'm hoping this thread doesn't get side tracked into a discussion
about voting procedures, but since you asked...
FWIU, you can not veto a release. You can vote -1 and attempt to
change other peoples minds and their votes to a -1. This is what
normally happens when someone votes -1, because is is normally
followed by a very good reason. On the other hand, we have had
release held up while someone fixed a nit. This is something I hope
to avoid that by reminding those that nit pick that they can be out
votes, so it is best to get their nits on the table now (or even
better fix them now).
-dain
Re: 1.2 Fit and Finish
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 10/31/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> In a typical Geronimo release we tend to spend a significant amount
> of time in what I'll call the "Fit and Finish" phase. This involves
> tying up loose ends such as log levels, tools L&F, startup times,
> licenses and so on. Basically, the phase includes fixing all the
> nits that cause people to vote -1 for a release (BTW no vetos in a
> release vote).
What do you mean by this BTW?
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.jaceklaskowski.pl