You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com> on 2007/07/26 07:21:00 UTC
[DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G
2.0where we can include the portlets (for
e.g., the "Create Plan" portlet Shiva is working on. See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254) for which user feedback
will play a great role in improving those further. Once we decide on
whether to retain those or not, we can either move them out to a different
group or remove them from Admin Console accordingly.
Vamsi
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
Posted by Shiva Kumar H R <sh...@gmail.com>.
I am excited ;-) with the opportunity that is opening up for my new portlet
to get included in G2.0.
I will see if I can wrap up auto-handling of security configuration for
web-apps by Monday.
- Shiva
On 7/27/07, Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sounds good! A tech preview with all these new goodies would be great, it
> will definitively drag users' attention, and if we hook them to their own
> wiki pages it would be even greater.
>
> Depending on the number of portlets we have (or may have) we may actually
> want to create a separate Tech Preview space in Confluence.
>
> Do we have a rough idea how many would fall into this bag?
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
> Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> > I kinda like the idea. Each such portlet should have a link to it's
> > own wiki page which will allow user feedback.
> >
> > I wonder if we can even take it one further, by having a wiki page for
> > some of our existing heavy-weight portlets (eg. wizards). The user can
> > blog their feedbacks which do not necessarily fall under the scope of
> > a JIRA. The wiki can be made to send comments to the dev-list
> > automatically.
> >
> > Currently we do not have a closed loop for our users to provide
> > feedbacks. Feedbacks provided on the lists are usually lost.
> >
> > This will improve the usability of our console.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Prasad
> >
> > On 7/26/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G
> 2.0
> >> where we can include the portlets (for e.g., the "Create Plan" portlet
> >> Shiva
> >> is working on. See
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254) for
> >> which user feedback will play a great role in improving those
> >> further. Once
> >> we decide on whether to retain those or not, we can either move them
> >> out to
> >> a different group or remove them from Admin Console accordingly.
> >>
> >> Vamsi
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console
in G 2.0
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good! A tech preview with all these new goodies would be great, it will definitively drag users' attention, and if we hook them to their own wiki pages it would be even greater.
Depending on the number of portlets we have (or may have) we may actually want to create a separate Tech Preview space in Confluence.
Do we have a rough idea how many would fall into this bag?
Cheers!
Hernan
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> I kinda like the idea. Each such portlet should have a link to it's
> own wiki page which will allow user feedback.
>
> I wonder if we can even take it one further, by having a wiki page for
> some of our existing heavy-weight portlets (eg. wizards). The user can
> blog their feedbacks which do not necessarily fall under the scope of
> a JIRA. The wiki can be made to send comments to the dev-list
> automatically.
>
> Currently we do not have a closed loop for our users to provide
> feedbacks. Feedbacks provided on the lists are usually lost.
>
> This will improve the usability of our console.
>
> Cheers
> Prasad
>
> On 7/26/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
>> where we can include the portlets (for e.g., the "Create Plan" portlet
>> Shiva
>> is working on. See
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254) for
>> which user feedback will play a great role in improving those
>> further. Once
>> we decide on whether to retain those or not, we can either move them
>> out to
>> a different group or remove them from Admin Console accordingly.
>>
>> Vamsi
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
I kinda like the idea. Each such portlet should have a link to it's
own wiki page which will allow user feedback.
I wonder if we can even take it one further, by having a wiki page for
some of our existing heavy-weight portlets (eg. wizards). The user can
blog their feedbacks which do not necessarily fall under the scope of
a JIRA. The wiki can be made to send comments to the dev-list
automatically.
Currently we do not have a closed loop for our users to provide
feedbacks. Feedbacks provided on the lists are usually lost.
This will improve the usability of our console.
Cheers
Prasad
On 7/26/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
> where we can include the portlets (for e.g., the "Create Plan" portlet Shiva
> is working on. See
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254) for
> which user feedback will play a great role in improving those further. Once
> we decide on whether to retain those or not, we can either move them out to
> a different group or remove them from Admin Console accordingly.
>
> Vamsi
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
On 7/27/07, Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I kinda like this idea too. It is always great to get users' feedback.
> If we decide to do it, I think we want to make it very clear it is
> "tech preview" on the pages, otherwise the users may have a different
> expectation.
I agree. Along with this we can also highlight that their feedback will
help improve the portlet, promote it out of Tech Preview to become one of
the regular portlets.
Vamsi
Lin
>
> Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> > How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G
> > 2.0 where we can include the portlets (for e.g., the "Create Plan"
> > portlet Shiva is working on. See
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254) for which user
> > feedback will play a great role in improving those further. Once we
> > decide on whether to retain those or not, we can either move them out to
> > a different group or remove them from Admin Console accordingly.
> >
> > Vamsi
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console
in G 2.0
Posted by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com>.
I kinda like this idea too. It is always great to get users' feedback.
If we decide to do it, I think we want to make it very clear it is
"tech preview" on the pages, otherwise the users may have a different
expectation.
Lin
Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G
> 2.0 where we can include the portlets (for e.g., the "Create Plan"
> portlet Shiva is working on. See
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254) for which user
> feedback will play a great role in improving those further. Once we
> decide on whether to retain those or not, we can either move them out to
> a different group or remove them from Admin Console accordingly.
>
> Vamsi
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
Posted by Shiva Kumar H R <sh...@gmail.com>.
On 7/30/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 2:04 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/30/07, Kevan Miller < kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/28/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jul 26, 2007, at 1:21 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in
> > > > G 2.0 where we can include the portlets (for e.g., the "Create Plan"
> > > > portlet Shiva is working on. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254
> > > > ) for which user feedback will play a great role in improving those
> > > > further. Once we decide on whether to retain those or not, we can either
> > > > move them out to a different group or remove them from Admin Console
> > > > accordingly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some of the new pluggable console support would have helped, here.
> > > > But that's not going into 2.0. Personally, sounds like this should
> > > > go into trunk, if it's not ready... Can still get good feedback...
> > > >
> > > > --kevan
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The idea is that if these portlets go in as part of a release with
> > > binaries readily available for download, we have a better chance of getting
> > > more users to try the portlets and possibly provide some feedback too in the
> > > linked wiki pages. If it goes only into trunk, the users will still have to
> > > build the binaries from trunk, which they may not want to/may not succeed
> > > due to some reason or the other.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I understood the idea.
> > >
> > > If a committer thinks that this code is ready and wants to commit it,
> > > then why isn't it in trunk? If it was in trunk, then we could evaluate and
> > > discuss getting it into branches/2.0. I'm currently doubtful that it should
> > > go into 2.0...
> > >
> >
> > I am not referring to code that may be delivering 100% of what it is
> > expected to deliver.
> >
>
> I thought an example may help here. The plan creator portlet that Shiva
> is working on, currently handles WAR files. The fully functional one is
> expected to handle WAR, EAR, EJB JAR, etc.
>
>
> A WAR plan creator sounds like useful capability in its own right. I don't
> see any reason why it couldn't be provided stand alone. If this capability
> was committed in trunk, provided useful capability, and had low risk for
> causing other problems, I would probably be in favor of putting it in the
> 2.0 release. I would not tag it with a "Tech Preview" label.
>
> Is a WAR capability the function you'd like to put into 2.0? I'll repeat
> -- you're best starting point is to get the function into trunk...
>
> This discussion has gotten me wondering about plan generation wizards, the
> j2g migration tool, and IDE tooling. Perhaps we should be thinking more
> holistically about these functions, rather than as disparate capabilities...
>
Thanks for raising this Kevan. The idea of "Plan Generation Wizard"
basically started off as a new feature proposal to Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in.
Later feedback from user mailing list suggested that such a tool would fit
best within "Admin Console" in close proximity with "Deploy New" tool. Some
of this discussion can be found here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg46831.html
Hence the current focus is on getting this feature implemented as a new
Portlet in Admin Console. This work will later be incorporated into Geronimo
Eclipse Plug-in also to simplify developmental activities. Admin Console
portlet is targeted to simplify the job of server administrators.
Looks like there will be a overlap of the functionality of J2G migration
tool and Plan Generation Wizards. Haven't looked into the details of J2G
migration tool, but my initial understanding is that in addition to
auto-transforming J-specific deployment plans into Geronimo deployment
plans, it also auto-maps some J-specific security classes into the ones
supported by Geronimo. So if a user already has a J-specific plan then "J2G
migration tool" is the tool for him, else he can start looking into Plan
Generation Wizards.
And yes, sharing of code for the overlapping functionality between J2G
migration tool and plan generation wizards is something to be looked into.
Comments welcome.
- Shiva
--kevan
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> A WAR plan creator sounds like useful capability in its own right.
> I don't see any reason why it couldn't be provided stand alone. If
> this capability was committed in trunk, provided useful capability,
> and had low risk for causing other problems, I would probably be in
> favor of putting it in the 2.0 release. I would not tag it with a
> "Tech Preview" label.
>
> Is a WAR capability the function you'd like to put into 2.0? I'll
> repeat -- you're best starting point is to get the function into
> trunk...
The new plan generator portlet sounds really interesting! I tend to
agree with Kevan that instead of thinking about 2.0 right now it
should go into trunk first and without a "Tech Preview" label. To me
trunk is by definition the place for incomplete works in progress
that we want to get into users' hands for feedback. Or sandbox.
Best wishes,
Paul
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 30, 2007, at 2:04 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/07, Kevan Miller < kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/28/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 26, 2007, at 1:21 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>>
>>> How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console
>>> in G 2.0 where we can include the portlets (for e.g., the "Create
>>> Plan" portlet Shiva is working on. See https://issues.apache.org/
>>> jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254 ) for which user feedback will play a
>>> great role in improving those further. Once we decide on whether
>>> to retain those or not, we can either move them out to a
>>> different group or remove them from Admin Console accordingly.
>>
>> Some of the new pluggable console support would have helped, here.
>> But that's not going into 2.0. Personally, sounds like this should
>> go into trunk, if it's not ready... Can still get good feedback...
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>>
>> The idea is that if these portlets go in as part of a release with
>> binaries readily available for download, we have a better chance
>> of getting more users to try the portlets and possibly provide
>> some feedback too in the linked wiki pages. If it goes only into
>> trunk, the users will still have to build the binaries from trunk,
>> which they may not want to/may not succeed due to some reason or
>> the other.
>
> Yes, I understood the idea.
>
> If a committer thinks that this code is ready and wants to commit
> it, then why isn't it in trunk? If it was in trunk, then we could
> evaluate and discuss getting it into branches/2.0. I'm currently
> doubtful that it should go into 2.0...
>
> I am not referring to code that may be delivering 100% of what it
> is expected to deliver.
>
> I thought an example may help here. The plan creator portlet that
> Shiva is working on, currently handles WAR files. The fully
> functional one is expected to handle WAR, EAR, EJB JAR, etc.
A WAR plan creator sounds like useful capability in its own right. I
don't see any reason why it couldn't be provided stand alone. If this
capability was committed in trunk, provided useful capability, and
had low risk for causing other problems, I would probably be in favor
of putting it in the 2.0 release. I would not tag it with a "Tech
Preview" label.
Is a WAR capability the function you'd like to put into 2.0? I'll
repeat -- you're best starting point is to get the function into
trunk...
This discussion has gotten me wondering about plan generation
wizards, the j2g migration tool, and IDE tooling. Perhaps we should
be thinking more holistically about these functions, rather than as
disparate capabilities...
--kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
On 7/30/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/28/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jul 26, 2007, at 1:21 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> > >
> > > How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G
> > > 2.0 where we can include the portlets (for e.g., the "Create Plan"
> > > portlet Shiva is working on. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254
> > > ) for which user feedback will play a great role in improving those
> > > further. Once we decide on whether to retain those or not, we can either
> > > move them out to a different group or remove them from Admin Console
> > > accordingly.
> > >
> > >
> > > Some of the new pluggable console support would have helped, here. But
> > > that's not going into 2.0. Personally, sounds like this should go into
> > > trunk, if it's not ready... Can still get good feedback...
> > >
> > > --kevan
> > >
> >
> >
> > The idea is that if these portlets go in as part of a release with
> > binaries readily available for download, we have a better chance of getting
> > more users to try the portlets and possibly provide some feedback too in the
> > linked wiki pages. If it goes only into trunk, the users will still have to
> > build the binaries from trunk, which they may not want to/may not succeed
> > due to some reason or the other.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I understood the idea.
> >
> > If a committer thinks that this code is ready and wants to commit it,
> > then why isn't it in trunk? If it was in trunk, then we could evaluate and
> > discuss getting it into branches/2.0. I'm currently doubtful that it should
> > go into 2.0...
> >
>
> I am not referring to code that may be delivering 100% of what it is
> expected to deliver.
>
I thought an example may help here. The plan creator portlet that Shiva is
working on, currently handles WAR files. The fully functional one is
expected to handle WAR, EAR, EJB JAR, etc.
Such code need not be put in a "Tech Preview" category. You may call this
> Tech Preview category as our own "incubator". Whatever is put under Tech
> Preview will be improved and "graduate" into the next release (which will
> mostly be from the 'trunk') based on community's response. If the community
> does not see a value, we may even get rid of it altogether.
>
> Vamsi
>
>
> --kevan
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
On 7/30/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/28/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jul 26, 2007, at 1:21 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> >
> > How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G
> > 2.0 where we can include the portlets (for e.g., the "Create Plan"
> > portlet Shiva is working on. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254
> > ) for which user feedback will play a great role in improving those
> > further. Once we decide on whether to retain those or not, we can either
> > move them out to a different group or remove them from Admin Console
> > accordingly.
> >
> >
> > Some of the new pluggable console support would have helped, here. But
> > that's not going into 2.0. Personally, sounds like this should go into
> > trunk, if it's not ready... Can still get good feedback...
> >
> > --kevan
> >
>
>
> The idea is that if these portlets go in as part of a release with
> binaries readily available for download, we have a better chance of getting
> more users to try the portlets and possibly provide some feedback too in the
> linked wiki pages. If it goes only into trunk, the users will still have to
> build the binaries from trunk, which they may not want to/may not succeed
> due to some reason or the other.
>
>
> Yes, I understood the idea.
>
> If a committer thinks that this code is ready and wants to commit it, then
> why isn't it in trunk? If it was in trunk, then we could evaluate and
> discuss getting it into branches/2.0. I'm currently doubtful that it should
> go into 2.0...
>
I am not referring to code that may be delivering 100% of what it is
expected to deliver. Such code need not be put in a "Tech Preview"
category. You may call this Tech Preview category as our own "incubator".
Whatever is put under Tech Preview will be improved and "graduate" into the
next release (which will mostly be from the 'trunk') based on community's
response. If the community does not see a value, we may even get rid of it
altogether.
Vamsi
--kevan
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
On 7/30/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/28/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jul 26, 2007, at 1:21 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> >
> > How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G
> > 2.0 where we can include the portlets (for e.g., the "Create Plan"
> > portlet Shiva is working on. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254
> > ) for which user feedback will play a great role in improving those
> > further. Once we decide on whether to retain those or not, we can either
> > move them out to a different group or remove them from Admin Console
> > accordingly.
> >
> >
> > Some of the new pluggable console support would have helped, here. But
> > that's not going into 2.0. Personally, sounds like this should go into
> > trunk, if it's not ready... Can still get good feedback...
> >
> > --kevan
> >
>
>
> The idea is that if these portlets go in as part of a release with
> binaries readily available for download, we have a better chance of getting
> more users to try the portlets and possibly provide some feedback too in the
> linked wiki pages. If it goes only into trunk, the users will still have to
> build the binaries from trunk, which they may not want to/may not succeed
> due to some reason or the other.
>
>
> Yes, I understood the idea.
>
> If a committer thinks that this code is ready and wants to commit it, then
> why isn't it in trunk? If it was in trunk, then we could evaluate and
> discuss getting it into branches/2.0. I'm currently doubtful that it should
> go into 2.0...
>
I forgot to ask in my last reply...
Matt,
does any new stuff going into branches\2.0 come in the way of release
schedules or sorts at this point?
Vamsi
--kevan
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>
> On 7/28/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2007, at 1:21 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>> How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console
>> in G 2.0 where we can include the portlets (for e.g., the "Create
>> Plan" portlet Shiva is working on. See https://issues.apache.org/
>> jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254 ) for which user feedback will play a
>> great role in improving those further. Once we decide on whether
>> to retain those or not, we can either move them out to a different
>> group or remove them from Admin Console accordingly.
>
> Some of the new pluggable console support would have helped, here.
> But that's not going into 2.0. Personally, sounds like this should
> go into trunk, if it's not ready... Can still get good feedback...
>
> --kevan
>
>
> The idea is that if these portlets go in as part of a release with
> binaries readily available for download, we have a better chance of
> getting more users to try the portlets and possibly provide some
> feedback too in the linked wiki pages. If it goes only into trunk,
> the users will still have to build the binaries from trunk, which
> they may not want to/may not succeed due to some reason or the other.
Yes, I understood the idea.
If a committer thinks that this code is ready and wants to commit it,
then why isn't it in trunk? If it was in trunk, then we could
evaluate and discuss getting it into branches/2.0. I'm currently
doubtful that it should go into 2.0...
--kevan
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
On 7/28/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2007, at 1:21 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
> How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0where we can include the portlets (for
> e.g., the "Create Plan" portlet Shiva is working on. See
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254) for which user
> feedback will play a great role in improving those further. Once we decide
> on whether to retain those or not, we can either move them out to a
> different group or remove them from Admin Console accordingly.
>
>
> Some of the new pluggable console support would have helped, here. But
> that's not going into 2.0. Personally, sounds like this should go into
> trunk, if it's not ready... Can still get good feedback...
>
> --kevan
>
The idea is that if these portlets go in as part of a release with binaries
readily available for download, we have a better chance of getting more
users to try the portlets and possibly provide some feedback too in the
linked wiki pages. If it goes only into trunk, the users will still have to
build the binaries from trunk, which they may not want to/may not succeed
due to some reason or the other.
Vamsi
Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in G 2.0
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 26, 2007, at 1:21 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> How about adding a "Tech Preview" portlet group in Admin Console in
> G 2.0 where we can include the portlets (for e.g., the "Create
> Plan" portlet Shiva is working on. See https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/GERONIMO-3254) for which user feedback will play a
> great role in improving those further. Once we decide on whether
> to retain those or not, we can either move them out to a different
> group or remove them from Admin Console accordingly.
Some of the new pluggable console support would have helped, here.
But that's not going into 2.0. Personally, sounds like this should go
into trunk, if it's not ready... Can still get good feedback...
--kevan