You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com> on 2005/09/06 16:09:00 UTC
M5 Cut proposal date
Now that we frozen the list for what will go into M5, and based on the
answers for QA/release dates, I propose the QA cut for M5 to occur on Sept
21, followed by a release on September 28.
Jeff
Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with this? I
>> am game.
>>
>
> I would hope that before we branch all the CTS tests have been run at
> least once on the new assemblies (and with both Jetty & Tomcat). CTS
> during the QA period should just be about verifying that things work all
> the way through on different platforms.
Ok...is this doable? If not, what is a good date?
>
> --
> Jeremy
Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with this? I am
> game.
>
I would hope that before we branch all the CTS tests have been run at
least once on the new assemblies (and with both Jetty & Tomcat). CTS
during the QA period should just be about verifying that things work all
the way through on different platforms.
--
Jeremy
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 9/7/05, Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com> wrote:
[X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <jl...@apache.org>.
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
Jacek
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 9/7/2005 10:06 AM:
>
> On Sep 7, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>>
>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>> [X] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on 9/16/05
>
>
> Can you shine a little light on why? Was there something missed that
> you want to get in there?
I want to fix the security stuff. I should be able to get it done by
this weekend.
Regards,
Alan
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sep 7, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
> [X] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on 9/16/05
Can you shine a little light on why? Was there something missed that
you want to get in there?
>
>
> BTW, in the future, please start a vote on a new email thread.
>
Good point.
geir
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
[ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
[X] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on 9/16/05
BTW, in the future, please start a vote on a new email thread.
Regards,
Alan
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
-David
On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote
> on it...
>
> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>
>
> For me:
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>
>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that
>>>> aren't on the list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>> period to
>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>> would mean a
>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold
>>>> off on
>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>> this? I am game.
>>>
>>>
>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was thinking
>> about; getting further and further from stable the long we wait
>> to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>> +1
>> David
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Sep 7, 2005, at 12:33 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote
> on it...
>
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
-dain
Re: Monday Checkpoint re M5 Cut (Was Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal
date)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Ok...9/16 then...but this is now 4 days warning. 9/16 needs to be it
(yes I know...someone needs to be the bad cop). ;-)
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> The count was :
>
> 9/9 : Jacek, Joe (non committer), Bruce, Geir, Dain, David B, Jeff
> 9/16 : Alan, Gianny,
>
> with David J then suggesting on friday (9/9) that given the state of
> things, we wait until monday (today, 9/12) and re-evaluate.
>
> It seems like we're making great progress, but still not there yet as
> of now - we need to fix the regressions so we don't have to fix the
> code in two places (which is probably what bit us from M4).
>
> Maybe your 9/16 will be it after all :)
>
> geir
>
> On Sep 12, 2005, at 10:55 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> I thought we were going to cut on 9/16
>>
>> On 9/12/2005 4:15 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think today will be it ;-)
>>>
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, where do we think we are today?
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards
>>>>> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be
>>>>> reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that
>>>>> people want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation)
>>>>> that I would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed
>>>>> in any case before the release. I think that unless someone is
>>>>> waiting to get a new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should
>>>>> wait until monday and see where we are.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
>>>>> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets
>>>>>> vote on it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>>>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me:
>>>>>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point,
>>>>>>>>> it doesn't appear to have stopped development of things
>>>>>>>>> that aren't on the list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If
>>>>>>>> something isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then
>>>>>>>> fine. We need a closure date at this point. I think we have
>>>>>>>> all agreed what is minimally in the cut.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code
>>>>>>>>> not on
>>>>>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>>>>>>> period to
>>>>>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>>>>>>> would mean a
>>>>>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold
>>>>>>>>> off on
>>>>>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>>>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was
>>>>>>> thinking about; getting further and further from stable the
>>>>>>> long we wait to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Monday Checkpoint re M5 Cut (Was Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
The count was :
9/9 : Jacek, Joe (non committer), Bruce, Geir, Dain, David B, Jeff
9/16 : Alan, Gianny,
with David J then suggesting on friday (9/9) that given the state of
things, we wait until monday (today, 9/12) and re-evaluate.
It seems like we're making great progress, but still not there yet as
of now - we need to fix the regressions so we don't have to fix the
code in two places (which is probably what bit us from M4).
Maybe your 9/16 will be it after all :)
geir
On Sep 12, 2005, at 10:55 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I thought we were going to cut on 9/16
>
> On 9/12/2005 4:15 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>
>> I think today will be it ;-)
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So, where do we think we are today?
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think we've made significant progress in the last week
>>>> towards being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think
>>>> there may be reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2
>>>> features that people want to get in (security improvements and
>>>> DDL generation) that I would like to see in M5, and more
>>>> stabilization is needed in any case before the release. I
>>>> think that unless someone is waiting to get a new feature in
>>>> that shouldn't go in M5 we should wait until monday and see
>>>> where we are.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our
>>>> code please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets
>>>>> vote on it...
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For me:
>>>>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point,
>>>>>>>> it doesn't appear to have stopped development of things
>>>>>>>> that aren't on the list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If
>>>>>>> something isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then
>>>>>>> fine. We need a closure date at this point. I think we
>>>>>>> have all agreed what is minimally in the cut.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any
>>>>>>>> code not on
>>>>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer
>>>>>>>> closing period to
>>>>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so
>>>>>>>> that would mean a
>>>>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to
>>>>>>>> hold off on
>>>>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was
>>>>>> thinking about; getting further and further from stable the
>>>>>> long we wait to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Monday Checkpoint re M5 Cut (Was Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal
date)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
I thought we were going to cut on 9/16
On 9/12/2005 4:15 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> I think today will be it ;-)
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> So, where do we think we are today?
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards
>>> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be
>>> reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that
>>> people want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation)
>>> that I would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed in
>>> any case before the release. I think that unless someone is
>>> waiting to get a new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should
>>> wait until monday and see where we are.
>>>
>>> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
>>> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote
>>>> on it...
>>>>
>>>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For me:
>>>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that
>>>>>>> aren't on the list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>>>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>>>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>>>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code
>>>>>>> not on
>>>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>>>>> period to
>>>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>>>>> would mean a
>>>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold
>>>>>>> off on
>>>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was
>>>>> thinking about; getting further and further from stable the long
>>>>> we wait to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>>>> +1
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Monday Checkpoint re M5 Cut (Was Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal
date)
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
I think today will be it ;-)
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> So, where do we think we are today?
>
> geir
>
> On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards
>> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be
>> reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that people
>> want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation) that I
>> would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed in any case
>> before the release. I think that unless someone is waiting to get a
>> new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should wait until monday
>> and see where we are.
>>
>> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
>> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote on
>>> it...
>>>
>>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>>
>>>
>>> For me:
>>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>
>>>
>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that aren't
>>>>>> on the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
>>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>>>> period to
>>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>>>> would mean a
>>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold off on
>>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was thinking
>>>> about; getting further and further from stable the long we wait to
>>>> branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>>> +1
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Monday Checkpoint re M5 Cut (Was Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal
date)
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> So, where do we think we are today?
>
Closer but that there are still regressions that need to be fixed and
there is no point in fixing them twice.
--
Jeremy
Monday Checkpoint re M5 Cut (Was Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
So, where do we think we are today?
geir
On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards
> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be
> reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that
> people want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation)
> that I would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed in
> any case before the release. I think that unless someone is
> waiting to get a new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should
> wait until monday and see where we are.
>
> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>
>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote
>> on it...
>>
>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>
>>
>> For me:
>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>
>>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that
>>>>> aren't on the list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code
>>>>> not on
>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>>> period to
>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>>> would mean a
>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold
>>>>> off on
>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was
>>> thinking about; getting further and further from stable the long
>>> we wait to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>> +1
>>> David
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On 9/9/2005 4:55 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> I've taken a look at both solutions for the openejb ASN1 usage. The
> ASN1 bouncy castle code is realatively selfcontained, and can be
> separated out an repackaged relatively quickly. I've already managed
> to build a version of the BC code that contains just the classes
> necessary to get the asn1 subdirectory to compile, and am working on a
> "pruned" version that removes support not likely to be required for
> openejb/geronimo. Once that is done, the changes to openejb are
> pretty trivial (mostly just changing package names). Right now, I'm
> planning on creating a util module in Geronimo for this to live.
>
> The Directory stuff is a little trickier. The Directory ASN1 support
> doesn't include support for different types of objects that use ASN1
> encodings (in this case X509 names). I took a crack at writing the
> equivalent, and found the Directory ASN1 support to be incomplete
> enough that you'd end up reimplementing a lot of the bc classes in the
> Directory. A "quick-and-dirty" approach just implementing X509 name
> parsing in the openejb Util module look doable, but was still a fairly
> tricky bit of code AND required some enhancements to the Directory
> ans1 support to implement. Right now, the bc subset version looks
> like the best route to take.
Let's go with the former. Toss it up on the Jira issue and I'll get to
it immediately.
Thanks for all your help on this.
Regards,
Alan
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards
>> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be
>> reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that
>> people want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation)
>> that I would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed in
>> any case before the release. I think that unless someone is waiting
>> to get a new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should wait until
>> monday and see where we are.
>>
>> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
>> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
>
>
> Along with your list in the initial thread, we need to deal with the
> BouncyCastle situation, since we need to stop shipping this jar. The
> status quo is unacceptable because of the patent encumbrance of IDEA
> and therefore the liability that could be accidentally triggered.
> Rick has done some great work on hunting this down. (http://
> issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-880) I think the fix is easy
> on our side - we can just change the keystore portlet to detect BC
> and do something different if not there (like show a page telling
> user where to get it if they want it, etc...) but right now, we need
> OpenEJB to remove the dependency. For OpenEJB, I think there are two
> aspects - the inclusion of IDEA in the SSLCipherSuite list (modules/
> core/src/java/org/openejb/corba/sunorb/SSLCipherSuiteDatabase.java)
> and it's usage of the ASN1 codec. I don't know what they (OpenEJB)
> want to do there - it's been suggested that the necessary code can be
> copied (it's under a modified X.Net-ish license) or Directory could
> be enhanced and used. It seems the former is simpler.
>
> Ideas? (No pun intended...)
I've taken a look at both solutions for the openejb ASN1 usage. The
ASN1 bouncy castle code is realatively selfcontained, and can be
separated out an repackaged relatively quickly. I've already managed to
build a version of the BC code that contains just the classes necessary
to get the asn1 subdirectory to compile, and am working on a "pruned"
version that removes support not likely to be required for
openejb/geronimo. Once that is done, the changes to openejb are pretty
trivial (mostly just changing package names). Right now, I'm planning
on creating a util module in Geronimo for this to live.
The Directory stuff is a little trickier. The Directory ASN1 support
doesn't include support for different types of objects that use ASN1
encodings (in this case X509 names). I took a crack at writing the
equivalent, and found the Directory ASN1 support to be incomplete enough
that you'd end up reimplementing a lot of the bc classes in the
Directory. A "quick-and-dirty" approach just implementing X509 name
parsing in the openejb Util module look doable, but was still a fairly
tricky bit of code AND required some enhancements to the Directory ans1
support to implement. Right now, the bc subset version looks like the
best route to take.
>
> geir
>
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote
>>> on it...
>>>
>>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>>
>>>
>>> For me:
>>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>>
>>>
>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that
>>>>>> aren't on the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
>>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>>>> period to
>>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>>>> would mean a
>>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold
>>>>>> off on
>>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was thinking
>>>> about; getting further and further from stable the long we wait
>>>> to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>>> +1
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sep 9, 2005, at 2:39 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards
> being ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be
> reasons to wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that
> people want to get in (security improvements and DDL generation)
> that I would like to see in M5, and more stabilization is needed in
> any case before the release. I think that unless someone is
> waiting to get a new feature in that shouldn't go in M5 we should
> wait until monday and see where we are.
>
> If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
> please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
Along with your list in the initial thread, we need to deal with the
BouncyCastle situation, since we need to stop shipping this jar. The
status quo is unacceptable because of the patent encumbrance of IDEA
and therefore the liability that could be accidentally triggered.
Rick has done some great work on hunting this down. (http://
issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-880) I think the fix is easy
on our side - we can just change the keystore portlet to detect BC
and do something different if not there (like show a page telling
user where to get it if they want it, etc...) but right now, we need
OpenEJB to remove the dependency. For OpenEJB, I think there are two
aspects - the inclusion of IDEA in the SSLCipherSuite list (modules/
core/src/java/org/openejb/corba/sunorb/SSLCipherSuiteDatabase.java)
and it's usage of the ASN1 codec. I don't know what they (OpenEJB)
want to do there - it's been suggested that the necessary code can be
copied (it's under a modified X.Net-ish license) or Directory could
be enhanced and used. It seems the former is simpler.
Ideas? (No pun intended...)
geir
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>
>> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote
>> on it...
>>
>> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>>
>>
>> For me:
>> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>>
>>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that
>>>>> aren't on the list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code
>>>>> not on
>>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>>> period to
>>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that
>>>>> would mean a
>>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold
>>>>> off on
>>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward
>>>>> greater stability in the mean time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with
>>>> this? I am game.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was
>>> thinking about; getting further and further from stable the long
>>> we wait to branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>>> +1
>>> David
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I think we've made significant progress in the last week towards being
ready to make the branch for M5, but I think there may be reasons to
wait a couple more days. There are 2 features that people want to get
in (security improvements and DDL generation) that I would like to see
in M5, and more stabilization is needed in any case before the release.
I think that unless someone is waiting to get a new feature in that
shouldn't go in M5 we should wait until monday and see where we are.
If anyone is contemplating a commit that may destabilize our code
please speak up so we can branch beforehand.
thanks
david jencks
On Sep 6, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote on
> it...
>
> [ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
> [ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
>
>
> For me:
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that aren't
>>>> on the list.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
>>> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
>>> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
>>> minimally in the cut.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
>>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>>>> period to
>>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that would
>>>> mean a
>>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold off on
>>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward greater
>>>> stability in the mean time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with this?
>>> I am game.
>>>
>> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was thinking
>> about; getting further and further from stable the long we wait to
>> branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>> +1
>> David
>
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
I'm not a committer but I'd like to add my backing for 9/9 QA cut.
I think we have to keep produce regular milestones/releases to keep the
momentum.
> :
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
>
--
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn@earthlink.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose." -- Jim Elliot
Re: [VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sep 7, 2005, at 12:33 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> [X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
[VOTE]Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Ok ...I am hijacking this thread... enough discussion...lets vote on it...
[ ] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
[ ] I think it should be after Friday...and should be on ______
For me:
[X] Friday 9/9 is the QA Cut date
David Blevins wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that aren't on
>>> the list.
>>>
>>
>> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something isn't
>> on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a closure
>> date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is minimally in
>> the cut.
>>
>>
>>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
>>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing period to
>>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that would
>>> mean a
>>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold off on
>>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward greater
>>> stability in the mean time.
>>>
>>
>> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with this? I
>> am game.
>>
>
> Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was thinking
> about; getting further and further from stable the long we wait to
> branch. Things always tend to creep in.
>
> +1
>
> David
Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Sep 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it
>> doesn't appear to have stopped development of things that aren't
>> on the list.
>>
>
> The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something
> isn't on the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a
> closure date at this point. I think we have all agreed what is
> minimally in the cut.
>
>
>> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
>> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing
>> period to
>> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that would
>> mean a
>> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold off on
>> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward greater
>> stability in the mean time.
>>
>
> Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with this?
> I am game.
>
Friday is great. Aaron expressed the same concern I was thinking
about; getting further and further from stable the long we wait to
branch. Things always tend to creep in.
+1
David
Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it doesn't
> appear to have stopped development of things that aren't on the list.
The list for what we are agreeing to go into M5. If something isn't on
the list and its an added bonus, then fine. We need a closure date at
this point. I think we have all agreed what is minimally in the cut.
>
> Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
> the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing period to
> resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that would mean a
> lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold off on
> non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward greater
> stability in the mean time.
Ok..shall we branch on Friday? Anhyone have any issues with this? I am
game.
>
> I'll take another look at the list items and try to pick out my
> "must haves", but it'll probably be late tomorrow or Thursday. I'd really
> like to get a lot of the issues looked at, since I think they could be
> easily closed or evaluated and deferred, so it would be great if people
> would take a quick pass through the open M5 items.
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=10220&fixfor=12310168
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>>Now that we frozen the list for what will go into M5, and based on the
>>answers for QA/release dates, I propose the QA cut for M5 to occur on Sept
>>21, followed by a release on September 28.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
What is the point of the "frozen list"? At this point, it doesn't
appear to have stopped development of things that aren't on the list.
Maybe we should make the branch like Friday, so any code not on
the list has to go into HEAD, and just have a longer closing period to
resolve the list items. There is a lot on the list, so that would mean a
lot of merges to HEAD, but unless everyone is willing to hold off on
non-list items, I'm not sure we're actually moving toward greater
stability in the mean time.
I'll take another look at the list items and try to pick out my
"must haves", but it'll probably be late tomorrow or Thursday. I'd really
like to get a lot of the issues looked at, since I think they could be
easily closed or evaluated and deferred, so it would be great if people
would take a quick pass through the open M5 items.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=10220&fixfor=12310168
Thanks,
Aaron
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Now that we frozen the list for what will go into M5, and based on the
> answers for QA/release dates, I propose the QA cut for M5 to occur on Sept
> 21, followed by a release on September 28.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
--- David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2005, at 7:09 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> > Now that we frozen the list for what will go into
> M5, and based on the
> > answers for QA/release dates, I propose the QA cut
> for M5 to occur on
> > Sept
> > 21, followed by a release on September 28.
>
> I'm very worried by this proposal. I would prefer a
> much quicker
> schedule. I have reviewed the issues marked for M5
> and believe the
> following are the only ones we should get into M5,
> and some of these
> are optional. I would like to know if anyone is
> determined to fix any
> other issues marked for M5 in the near future and
> when they expect to
> get them done. Waiting around while no one does any
> work on these
> issues will only frustrate those wishing to add new
> post-M5
> functionality.
>
> I propose we deal with the following issues and make
> the M5-QA branch
> no later than this friday Sept 9. With luck we will
> be able to
> complete tck testing fairly quickly and get the
> release out within a
> week.
>
> 940 -- dual contribution code
> 754 HOWL version upgrade
> 980 Jetty version upgrade
> 817 deploy-jsr88 module has dependency on openejb
> 945 jmDNS lgpl dependency
> 730/731 sample apps -- do these need to go through
> incubator or can I
> just commit them?
> 699 welcome app patches
I will submit the improved version (minor changes)
before Sept 9th.
Thanks
Anita
>
> and the big one...
> 883/890 login/security improvements. I would like
> to discuss with Alan
> the prospects for completing this quickly. If we
> can't get it done
> soon I think we should postpone it.
>
> In my view all the other issues would be nice to
> have but unless
> someone is willing to commit right now to fixing
> them right now we
> should leave them out of M5. I fear that unless we
> take a ruthless
> approach to what is in M5 releasing it will drag on
> for months. We
> have some great new functionality with tomcat
> included and easy to use,
> lets get it out to our prospective users as soon as
> we can.
>
> many thanks,
> david jencks
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: M5 Cut proposal date
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Sep 6, 2005, at 7:09 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Now that we frozen the list for what will go into M5, and based on the
> answers for QA/release dates, I propose the QA cut for M5 to occur on
> Sept
> 21, followed by a release on September 28.
I'm very worried by this proposal. I would prefer a much quicker
schedule. I have reviewed the issues marked for M5 and believe the
following are the only ones we should get into M5, and some of these
are optional. I would like to know if anyone is determined to fix any
other issues marked for M5 in the near future and when they expect to
get them done. Waiting around while no one does any work on these
issues will only frustrate those wishing to add new post-M5
functionality.
I propose we deal with the following issues and make the M5-QA branch
no later than this friday Sept 9. With luck we will be able to
complete tck testing fairly quickly and get the release out within a
week.
940 -- dual contribution code
754 HOWL version upgrade
980 Jetty version upgrade
817 deploy-jsr88 module has dependency on openejb
945 jmDNS lgpl dependency
730/731 sample apps -- do these need to go through incubator or can I
just commit them?
699 welcome app patches
and the big one...
883/890 login/security improvements. I would like to discuss with Alan
the prospects for completing this quickly. If we can't get it done
soon I think we should postpone it.
In my view all the other issues would be nice to have but unless
someone is willing to commit right now to fixing them right now we
should leave them out of M5. I fear that unless we take a ruthless
approach to what is in M5 releasing it will drag on for months. We
have some great new functionality with tomcat included and easy to use,
lets get it out to our prospective users as soon as we can.
many thanks,
david jencks