so the consensus so far is that people just want the branch to be
cut... I have no problem with that if people don't want to do any of
these for M4...
geir
On Jul 8, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 8, 2005, at 5:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:23:52PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
We can consider as a group if we want to hold up the branch for
these
improvements [....]
Thoughs from the group?
So you guys want to wait or not? Not going to make this call by
myself.
I was just working on a note for this so I'll just do it here - I
think driving to an M4 is a good thing, but we should agree on what
additional stuff we're going to do and do it and then branch, or
decide we're going to go with where we are, branch for M4 get the
M4 out, and then try and rev an M5 quickly soon after with the
stuff that we decided not to put in M4.
Of the things I've seen and sound good and easy and good corners to
knock off or get started to get people to contribute :
- have startup/shutdown/deploy scripts
- fix the deployer to not echo your password
- fix the deployer to not be totally silent
- get a release of ActiveMQ more recent than this afternoon (so
our port
list will show the ActiveMQ port)
- have a sample web app set as the default so localhost:8080
doesn't 404
Things that sound good but I don't grok completely :
- give the deployer a custom message for the case where
RuntimeDeployer
is not deployed
- see if we can eliminate class names from PK Generator configuration
- add a shutdown JAR, or management JAR with shutdown implemented
Things that sound good but might be hard and take long and
therefore be good for M5 :
- make sure exceptions propogate to the deploy tool well
- provide a bundled or linked MC4J release
- Matt's fix for the CMP/CMR issue
My $0.02
I'll also summarize our recent "Roadmap" thread and we can look at
that for M5, Mx ... v1.0
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
