RE: [VOTE] Release Plan

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Peter,

Here is my impression.  It does not appear that you are going to get a vote
on a release plan.  Anyone who wants to see James released should just act
as if the release plan was approved, work on getting the release ready, and
then we'll have to have a vote on the actual release.

It may not be ideal, but it may be the pragmatic best that you can get.

	--- Noel

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter M. Goldstein [mailto:peter_m_goldstein@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 15:35
To: 'James Developers List'
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Plan

Noel,

> Looks reasonable, but aggressive, to this non-voter.  :-)  Hopefully
there
> will be people to help perform these tasks.
>
> Where in this schedule do we actually test James with the latest
> Phoenix/Cornerstone code?  I still haven't figured out if there isn't
> a problem, as Peter Donald suggests, or if developers haven't
> redeployed, and thus are running a current SAR with an older copy
> of Phoenix and Cornerstone (I think that is probably my state).

We're currently running the latest version of Phoenix and, according to
Paul's commentary, should be running an older version of Cornerstone
(this needs to be checked).  As far as I can tell from the commentary on
the list, a few people at least have migrated to the latest Phoenix.  I
will be doing so shortly myself.  That's what we'll be releasing, so
that's what we'll test.

As far as the Serviceable/Composable discussion - that's one of the
reasons I want to see this thing go out the door.  Once this version is
out we can start making major changes.  The debate the other day made it
clear that we don't have a consensus, and that working one out is going
to take some time.  It also made it clear that there are a number of
improvements and fixes in this version that it would be nice to get to
our user base before we start making architectural changes.  We get this
out the door, we branch it so we can perform as-necessary bug-fixes on
the 2.1 code, and we move on.

The schedule is reasonable, but aggressive.  That's by design.  IMHO,
we've got to actually commit to an achievable, but marginally ambitious
schedule to generate some pressure to get a James release to completion.


--Peter


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: [VOTE] Release Plan

[Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>]

Actually its a lazy vote, abstentions count as +0
and perhaps it went astray but heres my +1, lets assume peter is +1 too and
wwe can assume the vote is carried.

d.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
> Sent: 04 October 2002 03:36
> To: James Developers List; farsight@alum.mit.edu
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Plan
>
>
> Peter,
>
> Here is my impression.  It does not appear that you are going to
> get a vote
> on a release plan.  Anyone who wants to see James released should just act
> as if the release plan was approved, work on getting the release
> ready, and
> then we'll have to have a vote on the actual release.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>