OK. I'm well aware that I've assigned a large number of 1.1 issues to myself. Is there someone else I should assign them to? And do you have a list of the "other issues" that you feel need to be addressed for the 1.1 release?
Thanks, Aaron On 5/23/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I appreciate your concerns but as you noted there are a number of other bug fixes and blockers that *you* moved into the 1.1 stream that need to be addressed. Null pointer exceptions, etc. If we were in better shape on the usability front I would agree with you. There are so many of those I think focusing on fixing what we know is broken is the priority. -1 on new features unless the other issues are addressed. I've been overly flexible on the release so far. The release is going out this week or next. Thanks for your concern for the plugins but as release manager that is not my priority. A stable working release is. Matt Aaron Mulder wrote: > I don't agree. 1.1 is not yet out the door, and if anything, it looks > like 1.2 will take longer than anticipated. Minor changes, necessary, > I vote 1.1. Remember, this change takes pressure off since we'll be > able to release more features as plugins. I'm strongly in favor of > taking things out of the critical path, whereas deferring to 1.2 will > extend the critical path by another 3+ months. > > Thanks, > Aaron > > On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I agree that they are necessary. Let's put them in 1.2. 1.1 is >> almost out the door and adding new >> features at this point is very late in the game. We're currently 30 >> days past our original date and >> almost 5 months past the 1.0 release. >> >> Please defer these till 1.2. >> >> Matt >> >> Aaron Mulder wrote: >> > We can call them what we want, but I think all the features are >> > necessary, in particular in order to support plugins. The advantage >> > of adding the first two features is that they let us take a lot of >> > other features *out* of the critical path, and release them as plugins >> > (also letting us support non-ASL licensed providers). Basically, the >> > idea is to replace a properties file with a GBean, since you can't >> > effectively add to a properties file at plugin installation time, but >> > you can certainly add GBeans. Bottom line, it's a small impact change >> > (console only, change the lookup logic that's already encapsulated in >> > a helper class to do a GBean interface query instead of a properties >> > file load), and it has significant benefits (new JMS providers or >> > security providers can be added at runtime via plugins and do not need >> > to be hardcoded into the Geronimo distribution). >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Aaron >> > >> > On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Based on the list below I think 1,2 and 3 are new function and 4 is a >> >> bug fix. >> >> >> >> Aaron Mulder wrote: >> >> > Here are the things that I still want to squeeze into 1.1: >> >> > - fix console JMS to accept new providers at runtime >> >> > - fix console security realms to accept new providers at runtime >> >> > - add a missing Geronimo security provider to console security >> realms >> >> > - fix hot deploy dir so it notices files updated while the server >> was >> >> > down and deletes files if they are undeployed some other way >> >> > >> >> > There are also AFAIK a number of not-yet-applied patches to review. >> >> >> >> Yes, there are several. >> >> >> >> I'm testing some performance related code. I'm waiting and hoping >> >> Codehaus comes up soon :) >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Aaron >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > >
