On 5/31/05, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I don't think we have agreed on what is stable and what is unstable.
> >> We were having a discussion on the fact that it is now impossible to
> >> offer a stable upgrade/patch path for applications. That thread was
> >> killed with "PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER CERTIFICATION."
> >>
> >> Now Jeremy has proposed that we ignore that discussion and begin
> >> cementing what we currently have as stable. How is that at all fair?
> >>
>
> I don't know about fair, but I am finding this discussion nearly as
> distracting as the previous one that we put on hold. I still don't see
> what exotic svn tricks might buy us over normal svn usage, and don't
> want to spend a lot of time thinking about it until we pass all the
> tests. I still think everyones perspective may change once we are
> passing all the tests and have fixed the few egregious architectural
> problems that crept in.
If you're referring to the circular dependency between Geronimo and
OpenEJB, I agree. This needs to be fixed ASAP.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&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/
