On Jan 14, 2008 8:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > On Jan 14, 2008, at 4:35 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: > > > What cleanup steps need to be taken with the yoko code now that it's > > been made a subproject in Geronimo? The first obvious one would be > > to remove the non-core components from the trunk. The second would > > be to remove the "incubating" from the version names. > > Agreed
+1 Is JDK 1.4 still a given or has geronimo upgraded it's JDK dependency to 1.5 since yoko entered the incubator? We shouldn't change the required JDK in a point release, so this seems like a good time to revisit this decision. > > The current code was never made into an official Yoko release. > > Should we attempt to get this out as an official v1 release as soon > > as the basic cleanup is completed? > > I think that some people had some concerns about a release but I think > that they were more focused on proper documentation and releasing a > well rounded product. That was me. My concern wasn't so much about user docs but developer level documentation, see the "Answer this question..." yoko issues in jira. Those questions mostly about being able to attract new developers. > It's my opinion that it's ok to release so long > as the code is good enough. With that said, I would like to make a > 1.0 release. Yes, the code could use some cleanup but it does pass certification and we can always improve things later, in another release. This of course assumes that we don't have to pay too much attention to backward compatibility. Does each follow-up version have to be a drop-in replacement of the first 1.0 release? Or is it OK to change ORB properties and such, as long as the changes are documented in the release notes (which is what I hope, but I don't know the requirements of Geronimo and Harmony)? Regards, Lars
