Seconding Jason's take on this. On 8/28/07, Jason Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matt, > > Feature-wise, I think it'd be ready to take on the 1.0 nomenclature but > I'd rather wait until when/if it gets moved out of sandbox. > > -- Jason Warner > > On 8/27/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Erik, Jason and Viet. This is really good. Since we're making a > > SNAPSHOT available is there some point where we should declare a 1.0 ? > > > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 4:30 PM, Erik B. Craig wrote: > > > > All, > > > > After the recent round of changes and improvements around j2g (usable > > from within the Eclipse IDE UI, Annotations support, improved > > logging/information output, support for EJB 3), as well as a bit of interest > > out in the general open source community in moving applications from Jboss > > to Geronimo (such as today's inquiry on theserverside.com), I feel as > > though it would be of some benefit to have j2g, at least the content in our > > confluence wiki ( > > http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC20/j2g-migration-tool.html) linked > > somewhere on the actual geronimo homepage. I was thinking either as it's own > > link under 'Subprojects', much as Development Tools, GBuild, or XBean are > > situated, or as an addition inside the Development Tools page, much as the > > current Eclipse Plug-in section rests within there. > > > > I am willing to commit to doing a bit of additional writing (beyond what > > is on the wiki) if it were to be under it's own section, or a subsection of > > development tools if necessary, but I think it would be good to get it up > > and out there sooner rather than later, especially to coincide with the > > recent release of 2.0.1 to perhaps show those out there remotely > > interested in migrating, there are tools available to assist and perhaps > > 'hold their hand' a bit. > > > > > > Thoughts? Comments? Objections? > > > > Thanks > > -- > > Erik B. Craig > > > > > > >
-- Erik B. Craig
