Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Final Items for 1.1
I would like to release Geronimo 1.1 on June 12th. Yes, that is three
days away. If we can't make that date then it will be 72 hours away
from each candidate build. Problem that are found need to be
addressed if they are deemed critical. Otherwise they will be tracked
and solved in a follow on release.
Unfortunately I will be off-line for the next three days. Not everybody
has every weekend free, so how about another 3 days so everyone has
plenty of notice and there will be less chance of complaints.
The only thing that I had outstanding was changes to the scripts
(GERONIMO-1638) as discussed at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg22807.html . Have
made changes (not committed) but they need to be tested on windows,
cygwin and unix, so with my time constraints it looks like this is going
to be for 1.1.1 .
Probably need something in the release notes saying that use of the
GERONIMO_BASE environment variables probably won't work and the new
org.apache.geronimo.server.dir and org.apache.geronimo.server.name system
properties are subject to change as they are experimental.
It would have been nice if I had a few more days to test and the
effectiveness of having a release candidate has already been proven..
Maybe we should be giving the users a bit more time to test..
That said. I sent a note earlier today announcing the freeze to
branches/1.1. Changes to this branch should be limited to bug fixes
only. The little changes are the ones that generally burn you. At
1400 ET the Inn is closed and I will spin up a release that will be
our release candidate.
The issues that have been raised from the previous build were
Guillaume's observation of the problem when running Geronimo under
CygWin as well as the license and Notice issues.
Since Geronimo is a multifaceted project there are several things that
need to be voted on. They are Geronimo itself, the specification jars
and DayTrader. Geronimo itself is the significant component that will
carry the other items so I believe a vote for Geronimo in this context
is a vote for all three items.
*There is a concern about the specification jars*
David Jencks raised this issue in another note on the list. The jars
have not been released but they have had a tag cut and the resulting
compilation has been placed on http://people.apache.org/repository.
One of the issues I found with the spec is that there are different
spec releases in the 1_1 tag. I would prefer that all jars have the
same version suffix. Right now it includes 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.1 and
others. I think this is confusing. We release Geronimo with all the
same module versions even if nothing has changed. I would like to
move that we recut a 1_2 tag with all spec jars having a 1.2 suffix.
In theory the version suffix should match up with the JIRA records for
it, but it seems we don't have a separate JIRA project set up for specs,
but having a 1.2 suffix seems just as confusing to me since the specs
from a JIRA perspective are managed as part of Geronimo's JIRA and we
are releasing 1.1.
*DayTrader*
Day Trader is currently a 1.1-SNAPSHOT as well. We will release the
DayTrader Ear (separate from Geronimo) as a 1.1 version as well. This
way the build will be in sync.
*Issues*
1. It was noted earlier today that there is a problem with Geronimo
under CygWin. Guillaume noted that an issue exists where a file is
not renamed (config.xml). Given that CygWin is a hybrid environment I
think we should investigate this problem but not hold up the release.
I could reproduce the problem and fixed it. See GERONIMO-2095.
2. Guillaume also pointed out the lack of a License and Notices file.
I will include the two files from the SVN geronimo/branches/1.1 in the
build tomorrow.
3. Numerous bug fixes are being addressed. Excellent.
Apart from Spec issue above I think we have most everything
addressed. Does this list of outstanding items and release plan make
sense?
Thanks Matt, I know you have been putting in some late nights getting
this on its way.
Matt
