All,
Here is what I would like to define as our closing set for 1.1
* Restoration of Codehaus repos to get OEJB and TranQL up and running.
* Complete testing of current performance fixes and commit them.
* Close out SNAPSHOTs to final releases (depends partially on the above)
* Complete the following JIRAs
Key Priority Summary
GERONIMO-1492 Blocker Many "org/apache/geronimo" configIds still live in
source tree
GERONIMO-1849 Blocker Attribute Manager broken WRT Reference
GERONIMO-1860 Blocker Tests of optional ConfigID components
GERONIMO-1924 Blocker Need to register the tomcat jndi url handler somehow
GERONIMO-1960 Blocker Bad GBean reference isn't caught during deployment
GERONIMO-2006 Blocker Deploying an application with an incorrect deployment plan results in
non-functional admin console panel
GERONIMO-2038 Blocker assemblies\minimal-tomcat-server fails on windows due
to file path length
GERONIMO-2042 Blocker ConfigurationAwareReference needs Serial Version UID
GERONIMO-2049 Blocker Jetty HTTPS edit shows no keystores in list
GERONIMO-2050 Blocker Unlocking a trust store still prompts for private key
selection/password
GERONIMO-2051 Blocker Console Jetty HTTPS connector has wrong trust store
help text
GERONIMO-2052 Blocker Dynamically added keystores never appear as unlocked
* Ship Unstable build
* Run CTS Testing
* Let bake a few days for testing
* Release 1.1
This is how I'd like to finish this release. Many of the above defects are assigned to Aaron.
Aaron, if you can keep the ones you think you can handle over the next few days and unassign the
rest. Everyone else can grab a JIRA or two and get them fixed and closed aggressively we can get
this completed.
Our original target for this release was April 28 and we're about a month behind. I would very much
like to ship this by next Wednesday (May 31) but perhaps Friday is more realistic.
If you have some cycles all help is appreciated.
Cheers,
Matt
Aaron Mulder wrote:
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
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
