You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Blevins <da...@visi.com> on 2005/07/08 06:15:30 UTC
M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch
Alright, it's been a few days since this was proposed, going to move forward as there didn't seem to be any objections.
(As a note to people who really want to get
features in before we release; good! Let's
release again very very soon!)
If you are in the middle of something, get to the end of it quick :)
If you were thinking of starting something big, wait till tomorrow at this time.
If you would prefer we delay creating the branch a day or two (and have good reason for holding up the show), speak up.
-David
Re: M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <jl...@apache.org>.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Can someone *PLEASE* help Jacek get Petstore working?
Hehe, thanks Dims for support ;) I'm about to commit a module with
scripts which will do what I'd have to describe on Wiki, so it gets
simpler to talk about the issues then.
> -- dims
Jacek
Re: M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Can someone *PLEASE* help Jacek get Petstore working?
-- dims
On 7/8/05, Jacek Laskowski <jl...@apache.org> wrote:
> David Blevins wrote:
> > You're starting to sound like me :) Alan and Jacek are always putting
> > me back in line when I go "release nuts". What can I say, the idea of
> > my code going out to people gets me a little excited. Not my fault :)
>
> :)
>
> > We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for these
> > improvements, but the idea behind the branch is that only
> > critical/showstoppers go in so we can go ahead with QA and TCK
> > testing.
>
> I'd go with the branch as soon as possible. It allows others to go on
> with testing (and possibly involve more people to contribute to
> Geronimo) while it wouldn't stop the development process, which can take
> its place on HEAD. Only bug fixes would be accepted and applied to the
> branch. Well, it would always require a vote, so I'm not worried too
> much about it.
>
> What I'd like to see is the final time we wouldn't be allowed to go
> behind when the release would be finally cut and issued. One 'silent'
> week would then be required when nothing but testing would be done on
> the release branch.
>
> I'm working on the PetStore deployment, but I'm more and more uncertain
> if it's going to be included in M4. I'm completely stuck with CMPs.
> Shall I ask for more time so that it goes in? No, because...see below...
>
> > Also, IMHO, I would really really like to see us release no later than
> > every six weeks or so if we can pull it off. Don't know how anyone
> > else feels about that.
>
> ...because I think that the more aggressive release schedule would make
> it. I second Dave's idea of the 6-weeks release period.
>
> If a given feature (e.g. PetStore deployment) doesn't go to M4 it will
> finally be included in M5 or M6 or later. I'd feel more excited if it
> were included very soon, say, in M4, but don't stand on the position for
> any price. I can and do work with the daily builds, but people would
> rather like to download an official release and I do understand them. We
> can't postpone releases only because we think that after 2 years of
> development it will become THE application platform. People won't wait
> too long. They want releases, we want them to report their experience
> with Geronimo, so the 6-weeks release period meets the goal very well.
>
> > -David
>
> Jacek
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
Re: M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <jl...@apache.org>.
David Blevins wrote:
> You're starting to sound like me :) Alan and Jacek are always putting
> me back in line when I go "release nuts". What can I say, the idea of
> my code going out to people gets me a little excited. Not my fault :)
:)
> We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for these
> improvements, but the idea behind the branch is that only
> critical/showstoppers go in so we can go ahead with QA and TCK
> testing.
I'd go with the branch as soon as possible. It allows others to go on
with testing (and possibly involve more people to contribute to
Geronimo) while it wouldn't stop the development process, which can take
its place on HEAD. Only bug fixes would be accepted and applied to the
branch. Well, it would always require a vote, so I'm not worried too
much about it.
What I'd like to see is the final time we wouldn't be allowed to go
behind when the release would be finally cut and issued. One 'silent'
week would then be required when nothing but testing would be done on
the release branch.
I'm working on the PetStore deployment, but I'm more and more uncertain
if it's going to be included in M4. I'm completely stuck with CMPs.
Shall I ask for more time so that it goes in? No, because...see below...
> Also, IMHO, I would really really like to see us release no later than
> every six weeks or so if we can pull it off. Don't know how anyone
> else feels about that.
...because I think that the more aggressive release schedule would make
it. I second Dave's idea of the 6-weeks release period.
If a given feature (e.g. PetStore deployment) doesn't go to M4 it will
finally be included in M5 or M6 or later. I'd feel more excited if it
were included very soon, say, in M4, but don't stand on the position for
any price. I can and do work with the daily builds, but people would
rather like to download an official release and I do understand them. We
can't postpone releases only because we think that after 2 years of
development it will become THE application platform. People won't wait
too long. They want releases, we want them to report their experience
with Geronimo, so the 6-weeks release period meets the goal very well.
> -David
Jacek
Re: M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
David Blevins wrote, On 7/7/2005 11:23 PM:
>You're starting to sound like me :) Alan and Jacek are always putting
>me back in line when I go "release nuts". What can I say, the idea of
>my code going out to people gets me a little excited. Not my fault :)
>
>We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for these
>improvements, but the idea behind the branch is that only
>critical/showstoppers go in so we can go ahead with QA and TCK
>testing.
>
>
+1
>Also, IMHO, I would really really like to see us release no later than
>every six weeks or so if we can pull it off. Don't know how anyone
>else feels about that.
>
>
Release early and often!
Regards,
Alan
Re: Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch)
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Cut and run...+1
- Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
To: <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch)
> so the consensus so far is that people just want the branch to be
> cut... I have no problem with that if people don't want to do any of
> these for M4...
>
> geir
>
> On Jul 8, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 8, 2005, at 5:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:23:52PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for
> >>> these
> >>> improvements [....]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Thoughs from the group?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> So you guys want to wait or not? Not going to make this call by
> >> myself.
> >>
> >
> > I was just working on a note for this so I'll just do it here - I
> > think driving to an M4 is a good thing, but we should agree on what
> > additional stuff we're going to do and do it and then branch, or
> > decide we're going to go with where we are, branch for M4 get the
> > M4 out, and then try and rev an M5 quickly soon after with the
> > stuff that we decided not to put in M4.
> >
> > Of the things I've seen and sound good and easy and good corners to
> > knock off or get started to get people to contribute :
> >
> > - have startup/shutdown/deploy scripts
> > - fix the deployer to not echo your password
> > - fix the deployer to not be totally silent
> > - get a release of ActiveMQ more recent than this afternoon (so
> > our port
> > list will show the ActiveMQ port)
> > - have a sample web app set as the default so localhost:8080
> > doesn't 404
> >
> > Things that sound good but I don't grok completely :
> >
> > - give the deployer a custom message for the case where
> > RuntimeDeployer
> > is not deployed
> > - see if we can eliminate class names from PK Generator configuration
> > - add a shutdown JAR, or management JAR with shutdown implemented
> >
> > Things that sound good but might be hard and take long and
> > therefore be good for M5 :
> >
> > - make sure exceptions propogate to the deploy tool well
> > - provide a bundled or linked MC4J release
> > - Matt's fix for the CMP/CMR issue
> >
> > My $0.02
> >
> > I'll also summarize our recent "Roadmap" thread and we can look at
> > that for M5, Mx ... v1.0
> >
> > geir
> >
> > --
> > Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> > geirm@apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
so the consensus so far is that people just want the branch to be
cut... I have no problem with that if people don't want to do any of
these for M4...
geir
On Jul 8, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2005, at 5:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:23:52PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for
>>> these
>>> improvements [....]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thoughs from the group?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So you guys want to wait or not? Not going to make this call by
>> myself.
>>
>
> I was just working on a note for this so I'll just do it here - I
> think driving to an M4 is a good thing, but we should agree on what
> additional stuff we're going to do and do it and then branch, or
> decide we're going to go with where we are, branch for M4 get the
> M4 out, and then try and rev an M5 quickly soon after with the
> stuff that we decided not to put in M4.
>
> Of the things I've seen and sound good and easy and good corners to
> knock off or get started to get people to contribute :
>
> - have startup/shutdown/deploy scripts
> - fix the deployer to not echo your password
> - fix the deployer to not be totally silent
> - get a release of ActiveMQ more recent than this afternoon (so
> our port
> list will show the ActiveMQ port)
> - have a sample web app set as the default so localhost:8080
> doesn't 404
>
> Things that sound good but I don't grok completely :
>
> - give the deployer a custom message for the case where
> RuntimeDeployer
> is not deployed
> - see if we can eliminate class names from PK Generator configuration
> - add a shutdown JAR, or management JAR with shutdown implemented
>
> Things that sound good but might be hard and take long and
> therefore be good for M5 :
>
> - make sure exceptions propogate to the deploy tool well
> - provide a bundled or linked MC4J release
> - Matt's fix for the CMP/CMR issue
>
> My $0.02
>
> I'll also summarize our recent "Roadmap" thread and we can look at
> that for M5, Mx ... v1.0
>
> geir
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Just to explain what I had in mind...
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> - give the deployer a custom message for the case where
> RuntimeDeployer is not deployed
If the RuntimeDeployer configuration is not running, the deployer
does not work and does not really say why. It would be idea for it to say
something like "Server does not appear to have a deployer service running.
If this is a typical Geronimo configuration, you need to start it with
org/apache/geronimo/RuntimeDeployer active. For more details, see
http://..."
> - see if we can eliminate class names from PK Generator configuration
Each of the PK Generators takes a class name for the ID it should
create. However, we should already know that based on the PK field for
the EJB (even when it was initially declared as java.lang.Object you have
to override it with a custom cmp-field-mapping and provide the real type)
so I think those extra arguments can be eliminated. I haven't tested that
yet, however. If I get a chance it would be nice to do so in this release
so they syntax is best the first time it shows up -- but if we have to
streamline it for M5 that won't break my heart.
> - add a shutdown JAR, or management JAR with shutdown implemented
Some way other than Ctrl-C to shut down the server. Either a
"java -jar bin/shutdown.jar" or a "java -jar bin/management.jar shutdown"
or something along those lines.
Aaron
Re: Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 8, 2005, at 5:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:23:52PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for these
>> improvements [....]
>>
>
>
>> Thoughs from the group?
>>
>
> So you guys want to wait or not? Not going to make this call by
> myself.
I was just working on a note for this so I'll just do it here - I
think driving to an M4 is a good thing, but we should agree on what
additional stuff we're going to do and do it and then branch, or
decide we're going to go with where we are, branch for M4 get the M4
out, and then try and rev an M5 quickly soon after with the stuff
that we decided not to put in M4.
Of the things I've seen and sound good and easy and good corners to
knock off or get started to get people to contribute :
- have startup/shutdown/deploy scripts
- fix the deployer to not echo your password
- fix the deployer to not be totally silent
- get a release of ActiveMQ more recent than this afternoon (so our
port
list will show the ActiveMQ port)
- have a sample web app set as the default so localhost:8080
doesn't 404
Things that sound good but I don't grok completely :
- give the deployer a custom message for the case where
RuntimeDeployer
is not deployed
- see if we can eliminate class names from PK Generator configuration
- add a shutdown JAR, or management JAR with shutdown implemented
Things that sound good but might be hard and take long and therefore
be good for M5 :
- make sure exceptions propogate to the deploy tool well
- provide a bundled or linked MC4J release
- Matt's fix for the CMP/CMR issue
My $0.02
I'll also summarize our recent "Roadmap" thread and we can look at
that for M5, Mx ... v1.0
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
David Jencks wrote, On 7/8/2005 3:22 PM:
>
> On Jul 8, 2005, at 3:03 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:23:52PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for these
>>>> improvements [....]
>>>>
>>> So you guys want to wait or not? Not going to make this call by
>>> myself.
>>
>>
>> I say cut the branch quickly so we can all begin working on features
>> to be included in the next release in 6 weeks :)
>>
>> I have some corba code I'd like to check in but I am not comfortable
>> putting it in this release.
>
>
> Does this mean we will be including openorb in m4 ? I'd be willing to
> wait a couple of days to get that code cleanup in.
Let's cut and work hard on M5. Let us resist the urge to toss stuff
into the shopping cart when we are in the checkout lane.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch)
Posted by David Jencks <dj...@gluecode.com>.
On Jul 8, 2005, at 3:03 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:23:52PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for these
>>> improvements [....]
>>>
>> So you guys want to wait or not? Not going to make this call by
>> myself.
>
> I say cut the branch quickly so we can all begin working on features
> to be included in the next release in 6 weeks :)
>
> I have some corba code I'd like to check in but I am not comfortable
> putting it in this release.
Does this mean we will be including openorb in m4 ? I'd be willing to
wait a couple of days to get that code cleanup in.
Other than that I have committed all the changes I want in m4 and am
happy with branching now.
david jencks
>
> -dain
>
Re: Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch)
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:23:52PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for these
>> improvements [....]
>>
> So you guys want to wait or not? Not going to make this call by
> myself.
I say cut the branch quickly so we can all begin working on features
to be included in the next release in 6 weeks :)
I have some corba code I'd like to check in but I am not comfortable
putting it in this release.
-dain
Re: Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I vote branch now -- I'd like to see M4 go out the door.
Aaron
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:23:52PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
> > We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for these
> > improvements [....]
>
> > Thoughs from the group?
>
> So you guys want to wait or not? Not going to make this call by myself.
>
>
> -David
>
> > -David
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 12:45:30AM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > > Things I want to do for M4 (none of these need to hold up the branch):
> > > - see if we can eliminate class names from PK Generator configuration
> > > - get a release of ActiveMQ more recent than this afternoon (so our port
> > > list will show the ActiveMQ port)
> > > - fix the deployer to not echo your password
> > > - fix the deployer to not be totally silent
> > > - give the deployer a custom message for the case where RuntimeDeployer
> > > is not deployed
> > > - make sure exceptions propogate to the deploy tool well
> > >
> > > And "would be nice but don't plan to do this myself":
> > > - have a sample web app set as the default so localhost:8080 doesn't 404
> > > - add a shutdown JAR, or management JAR with shutdown implemented
> > > - have startup/shutdown/deploy scripts
> > > - provide a bundled or linked MC4J release
> > >
> > > Aaron
> > >
> > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> > > > Alright, it's been a few days since this was proposed, going to move forward as there didn't seem to be any objections.
> > > >
> > > > (As a note to people who really want to get
> > > > features in before we release; good! Let's
> > > > release again very very soon!)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you are in the middle of something, get to the end of it quick :)
> > > >
> > > > If you were thinking of starting something big, wait till tomorrow at this time.
> > > >
> > > > If you would prefer we delay creating the branch a day or two (and have good reason for holding up the show), speak up.
> > > >
> > > > -David
> > > >
>
Re: Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch)
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
We have another 6 hours before the earliest proposed time for the
branch, right?
Aaron said "none of these should hold up the branch" about the things
he plans to do. Is the question whether anyone wants to take on the
things in his list he doesn't want to do before the branch? I don't
plan to do any of them.
I assume there are going to be a few days after the branch we can use
to iron out dependency versions, tck compliance, etc?
thanks
david jencks
On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:23:52PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
>> We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for these
>> improvements [....]
>
>> Thoughs from the group?
>
> So you guys want to wait or not? Not going to make this call by
> myself.
>
>
> -David
>
>> -David
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 12:45:30AM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>> Things I want to do for M4 (none of these need to hold up the
>>> branch):
>>> - see if we can eliminate class names from PK Generator
>>> configuration
>>> - get a release of ActiveMQ more recent than this afternoon (so our
>>> port
>>> list will show the ActiveMQ port)
>>> - fix the deployer to not echo your password
>>> - fix the deployer to not be totally silent
>>> - give the deployer a custom message for the case where
>>> RuntimeDeployer
>>> is not deployed
>>> - make sure exceptions propogate to the deploy tool well
>>>
>>> And "would be nice but don't plan to do this myself":
>>> - have a sample web app set as the default so localhost:8080
>>> doesn't 404
>>> - add a shutdown JAR, or management JAR with shutdown implemented
>>> - have startup/shutdown/deploy scripts
>>> - provide a bundled or linked MC4J release
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
>>>> Alright, it's been a few days since this was proposed, going to
>>>> move forward as there didn't seem to be any objections.
>>>>
>>>> (As a note to people who really want to get
>>>> features in before we release; good! Let's
>>>> release again very very soon!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are in the middle of something, get to the end of it quick :)
>>>>
>>>> If you were thinking of starting something big, wait till tomorrow
>>>> at this time.
>>>>
>>>> If you would prefer we delay creating the branch a day or two (and
>>>> have good reason for holding up the show), speak up.
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>
Re: Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch)
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <jl...@apache.org>.
David Blevins wrote:
> So you guys want to wait or not? Not going to make this call by myself.
Not to wait. We'd wait forever with such improvements. The testing will
surely show some troubles so let's have some time to fix them.
> -David
Jacek
Re: Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:23:52PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
> We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for these
> improvements [....]
> Thoughs from the group?
So you guys want to wait or not? Not going to make this call by myself.
-David
> -David
>
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 12:45:30AM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > Things I want to do for M4 (none of these need to hold up the branch):
> > - see if we can eliminate class names from PK Generator configuration
> > - get a release of ActiveMQ more recent than this afternoon (so our port
> > list will show the ActiveMQ port)
> > - fix the deployer to not echo your password
> > - fix the deployer to not be totally silent
> > - give the deployer a custom message for the case where RuntimeDeployer
> > is not deployed
> > - make sure exceptions propogate to the deploy tool well
> >
> > And "would be nice but don't plan to do this myself":
> > - have a sample web app set as the default so localhost:8080 doesn't 404
> > - add a shutdown JAR, or management JAR with shutdown implemented
> > - have startup/shutdown/deploy scripts
> > - provide a bundled or linked MC4J release
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> > > Alright, it's been a few days since this was proposed, going to move forward as there didn't seem to be any objections.
> > >
> > > (As a note to people who really want to get
> > > features in before we release; good! Let's
> > > release again very very soon!)
> > >
> > >
> > > If you are in the middle of something, get to the end of it quick :)
> > >
> > > If you were thinking of starting something big, wait till tomorrow at this time.
> > >
> > > If you would prefer we delay creating the branch a day or two (and have good reason for holding up the show), speak up.
> > >
> > > -David
> > >
Re: M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
You're starting to sound like me :) Alan and Jacek are always putting
me back in line when I go "release nuts". What can I say, the idea of
my code going out to people gets me a little excited. Not my fault :)
We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for these
improvements, but the idea behind the branch is that only
critical/showstoppers go in so we can go ahead with QA and TCK
testing.
Also, IMHO, I would really really like to see us release no later than
every six weeks or so if we can pull it off. Don't know how anyone
else feels about that.
Thoughs from the group?
-David
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 12:45:30AM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Things I want to do for M4 (none of these need to hold up the branch):
> - see if we can eliminate class names from PK Generator configuration
> - get a release of ActiveMQ more recent than this afternoon (so our port
> list will show the ActiveMQ port)
> - fix the deployer to not echo your password
> - fix the deployer to not be totally silent
> - give the deployer a custom message for the case where RuntimeDeployer
> is not deployed
> - make sure exceptions propogate to the deploy tool well
>
> And "would be nice but don't plan to do this myself":
> - have a sample web app set as the default so localhost:8080 doesn't 404
> - add a shutdown JAR, or management JAR with shutdown implemented
> - have startup/shutdown/deploy scripts
> - provide a bundled or linked MC4J release
>
> Aaron
>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> > Alright, it's been a few days since this was proposed, going to move forward as there didn't seem to be any objections.
> >
> > (As a note to people who really want to get
> > features in before we release; good! Let's
> > release again very very soon!)
> >
> >
> > If you are in the middle of something, get to the end of it quick :)
> >
> > If you were thinking of starting something big, wait till tomorrow at this time.
> >
> > If you would prefer we delay creating the branch a day or two (and have good reason for holding up the show), speak up.
> >
> > -David
> >
Re: M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I need to get off my butt and fix the CMP / CMR read only problem. Since
that is an OpenEJB / TranQL issue I'm not sure how that will be affected by
the branch. I'll hunker down and give the problem more than a few minutes
here and there.
- Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Mulder" <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>
To: <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch
> Things I want to do for M4 (none of these need to hold up the branch):
> - see if we can eliminate class names from PK Generator configuration
> - get a release of ActiveMQ more recent than this afternoon (so our port
> list will show the ActiveMQ port)
> - fix the deployer to not echo your password
> - fix the deployer to not be totally silent
> - give the deployer a custom message for the case where RuntimeDeployer
> is not deployed
> - make sure exceptions propogate to the deploy tool well
>
> And "would be nice but don't plan to do this myself":
> - have a sample web app set as the default so localhost:8080 doesn't 404
> - add a shutdown JAR, or management JAR with shutdown implemented
> - have startup/shutdown/deploy scripts
> - provide a bundled or linked MC4J release
>
> Aaron
>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> > Alright, it's been a few days since this was proposed, going to move
forward as there didn't seem to be any objections.
> >
> > (As a note to people who really want to get
> > features in before we release; good! Let's
> > release again very very soon!)
> >
> >
> > If you are in the middle of something, get to the end of it quick :)
> >
> > If you were thinking of starting something big, wait till tomorrow at
this time.
> >
> > If you would prefer we delay creating the branch a day or two (and have
good reason for holding up the show), speak up.
> >
> > -David
> >
>
>
Re: M4 -- 24 hour notice of branch
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Things I want to do for M4 (none of these need to hold up the branch):
- see if we can eliminate class names from PK Generator configuration
- get a release of ActiveMQ more recent than this afternoon (so our port
list will show the ActiveMQ port)
- fix the deployer to not echo your password
- fix the deployer to not be totally silent
- give the deployer a custom message for the case where RuntimeDeployer
is not deployed
- make sure exceptions propogate to the deploy tool well
And "would be nice but don't plan to do this myself":
- have a sample web app set as the default so localhost:8080 doesn't 404
- add a shutdown JAR, or management JAR with shutdown implemented
- have startup/shutdown/deploy scripts
- provide a bundled or linked MC4J release
Aaron
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> Alright, it's been a few days since this was proposed, going to move forward as there didn't seem to be any objections.
>
> (As a note to people who really want to get
> features in before we release; good! Let's
> release again very very soon!)
>
>
> If you are in the middle of something, get to the end of it quick :)
>
> If you were thinking of starting something big, wait till tomorrow at this time.
>
> If you would prefer we delay creating the branch a day or two (and have good reason for holding up the show), speak up.
>
> -David
>