I am extremely strongly in favor of only bug fixes for M4 and putting
out M5 in mid august and 1.0 in mid sept.
I'd like to point out that re-branching at this point is essentially
abandoning M4 for M5. I have committed substantial changes to head
that are not yet necessarily completely stable and are also not quite
complete. If we rebranch, we won't be able to get the new M4.5 out
before mid august anyway.
I abandoned my hopes of getting all the work I am putting in head into
M4: after some consideration I decided that it was more important to
get M4 out than my favorite features in, even though I was sure they
would not be destabilizing. There's some difference in that my
features have no discernable impact on the normal user, but still :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Jul 20, 2005, at 6:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the Geronimo IRC channel there was talk about the Tomcat/Jetty
Picker
not going in M4 because it is now involving more code changes than what
people thought they had agreed to. This was a surprise to me and after
discussion it was proposed that I call for a vote.
Before I do, I thought a little background might be helpful..
Back in the mail thread "Preparation for M4 -- jetty vs tomcat or jetty
and tomcat (two builds)" on 5th of July it was agreed that there
would be
a Tomcat and a Jetty build of Geronimo.
In the mail thread "Wait or not? Respond quick. (M4 -- 24 hour notice
of
branch)" on 9th of July, it appears nobody asked to hold off creating
the
branch to do the work for the Tomcat / Jetty builds. Maybe it was just
assumed it was going to be simple changes in the branch, or it was
forgotten.
In the mail thread "M4 Status", started by Aaron on 18th July, he said
"I
believe Jeff is working on separate plans for Tomcat and Jetty builds,
so
we can produce two separate distributions as people seemed to prefer."
.
Alan responded "I think that the notion that adding new features into
a
QA branch is a bad idea stands, regardless of how simple the changes
are
and how simple it is to merge them. It's simply bad form". Alan then
said "I'm not opposed to the what and why. I am opposed to the how."
David Jencks also agreed with Alan in the mail thread.
So it seems that people are unhappy with the "how" as Alan said.
Since it was already agreed that we are to have separate Tomcat and
Jetty
builds in M4, that decision should not be questioned and as a reminder
Jeff's changes have the following benefits:
* Less user problems - the previous method of having to edit many
files is
prone to failure, it caught me out many times, and I have seen others
get
caught out!
* We don't have to document the M4 way of configuring the web
containers
and the M5 way of configuring. This makes the instructions more
complicated and makes it harder for other forms of documentation to
stay
relevant (e.g. articles and Aaron's book).
* Documentation does not have to be changed when we reach M5.
* We are seen to be trying to minimise changes that impact
configuration
between releases.
Looking back, it appears we branched too early.
I propose that we vote on the "how" with the following options:
a) Merge Jeff's Tomcat/Jetty switch changes into the M4 QA branch
b) Make a new Geronimo M4 QA and OpenEJB M4 QA branches from HEAD
when it is stable.
John
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
proprietary or non-public information. This information is intended
solely for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or
transmission
error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy this e-mail. Any review, dissemination, use or reliance
upon
this information by unintended recipients is prohibited. Any opinions
expressed in this e-mail are those of the author personally.
