Branching for a 2.0-M6 is a short lived process and basically what
we've done over the past few months. I'll branch, fix up / clean up
and andy patches there will be small and easily managed in two
branches. This isn't intended to be a long lived maintenance
problem. We've been there and done that and don't plan on returning.
On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> One thing I would be in favor of is branching only when we are
> actually ready for 2.0 final. Otherwise, we will have two trees to
> commit our patches to and keep in synch. And that is always
> problematic.
>
> Jarek
>
> On 6/1/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I like Kevan's suggestion. We ship the assemblies we normally
build.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Gianny Damour wrote:
>>
>> > On 01/06/2007, at 3:56 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0
>> >>> certified and it seems like the light at the end of the
tunnel is
>> >>> not an oncoming train but the other side :) With that
we're also
>> >>> at the point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of
>> >>> May. Given that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested
>> >>> what do folks think about the name of the release and what
will
>> >>> it contain? Also, when is a branch appropriate?
>> >>>
>> >>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would
include
>> >>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a
>> >>> work in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as
>> >>> certified and allows us to continue knocking off the
corners for
>> >>> performance, footprint, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Why not also a jetty assembly? Unless there are really
>> >> significant problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple
days and
>> >> getting both platforms out at the same time.
>> >
>> > I am also in favor of a simultaneous release of Jetty and Tomcat
>> > assemblies.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Gianny
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at
>> >>> this time as we finish the other work.
>> >>>
>> >>> What do others think?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on
>> >> that I would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever
>> >> (milestone, snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards
>> >> compatible. It affects how default subjects and run-as
subjects
>> >> are constructed and will finish the JACC plugability work.
I'll
>> >> try to get something out today describing how it works in more
>> >> detail.
>> >>
>> >> thanks
>> >> david jencks
>> >>
>> >>> Matt
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
