Re: Thoughts about what a release is

[Alan D. Cabrera]

Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I am a bit torn here, because I agree with both of you depending on 
which code we are talking about.  Geronimo is a large project and I 
think we will be doing ourselves a disservice if we attempt to treat 
all of the code the same.  For example, I think Alan's comments apply 
best to the core transaction processing parts of geronimo, and I think 
think Aaron's comments apply best to non-critical parts of the server 
like the console and tooling.  I would be upset if someone tried to 
add a new feature to the core server in a micro release, but if they 
say added a new command to the cli or a new portlet, I wouldn't be 
upset at all.

Can we find a compromise where critical code moves more conservatively 
and non-critical code gets more liberal rules?  If not, I think we 
should start talking about how to divide up the code base into 
independently versioned released components.  This will take a lot of 
effort in architecture and organization in our team.  I'd rather not 
do it at this time, but maybe the time has come sooner that I wanted.

Core stuff is more important to you because, well, that's what you work 
on.  What you consider "fluff" stuff may be critical to others.

Splitting the product into separate lines would not cause time tested, 
industry standard, principals to not apply to apply to those new 
proposed product lines.  I would feel just as strongly about the pieces 
as I would the whole.


Regards,
Alan