I am just trying to be thorough. I figured erring on the side of caution was best...it made it clear, so nobody would take issue.
Thanks, Jeff David Jencks wrote: > To clarify, > +1 on new trunk after 1.1 is branched > -1 on inclusion in 1.1 release. > > I actually don't understand why a vote on this is required. My > understanding is that we have all already agreed that all new stuff in > current trunk is part of future geronimo and the only question is when > to merge it back into the new 1.1-based trunk. This is already work we > have approved of by commit-then-review, why does it need to be voted on? > > thanks > david jencks > > On May 22, 2006, at 10:13 AM, David Jencks wrote: > >> I'm fine with it going into trunk after 1.1 is branched. I'm not at >> all fine with it going into 1.1 and getting released in 1.1: I don't >> think we should release an api that has not been proved to work well. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> On May 22, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Jeff Genender wrote: >> >>> We have an initial swipe at some clustering to put into the sandbox, but >>> will have a need for the session api ;-) >>> >>> Anyone have issue with putting the session API in 1.1 (the new trunk >>> version that is)? (Need 3 +1s) >>> >>> Jeff >>
