I guess I should resolve this discussion on "if" we should release 2.0.3
that I started.
Thank you both Jay and Donald for your responses. I'm not completely
opposed to a 2.0.3 release. I was just wondering aloud if it was the
best use of our resources and if it conveyed the right message to our
users. I was also wondering a little if it might create more problems
for our users than it solves. You know the drill ... upgrade from one
maintenance release to another only to discover yet another issue that
then forces you to a new version like 2.1.* because it isn't resolved in
the current maintenance stream. If it weren't for the security issues I
would see no value in a 2.0.3 release. Anyway, I am certainly not
planning to stand in the way of a 2.0.3 release. I'll even do my part
to validate the images and help where I can. However, my gut still
tells me that we might creating more problems than we are solving. But
since I'm the only one that feels that way I'm not too worried (I've
been wrong plenty of times before ;-) ).
It sounds like we still need to document what is necessary to move from
2.0.* to 2.1.* in any case. I guess the first step might be adding the
libraries that are no longer included in 2.1.* into the list in the wiki
under http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDOC21/what-changed-in-21.html. Does
anybody have a complete list of these libraries? We'll probably still
need more specific documentation to make it clear what a user might have
to do when moving from 2.0.* to 2.1.*. Perhaps another page somewhere
(similar to those under "Migrating to Apache Geronimo")?
Joe
Donald Woods wrote:
I think releasing 2.0.3 is in the best interest of the community, given
the security fixes that it contains. It also gives us a way to announce
to our users that this will be the last 2.0.x release (which we never
really did for 1.1.x) and that they should start moving to 2.1.x or 2.2
for any new projects.
-Donald
Joe Bohn wrote:
I apologize for not raising this question on the earlier thread.
I'm wondering if it is a good idea to release a 2.0.3 at this point in
time. We've had several releases of 2.1.x (four) and we'll hopefully
release 2.2 in the not too distant future. I'm a little concerned
that releasing a 2.0.3 now will just encourage people to continue on
the 2.0.* base rather than taking the plunge and moving up to 2.1.*.
It's been a year since we released 2.0.2 and in addition to the
security fixes there have been a lot of other fixes/enhancements in
the 2.1 branch.
What are the big stumbling blocks that prevent a user from moving from
2.0.2 to 2.1.3 to resolve the security concerns?
Rather than releasing 2.0.3, should we maybe consider a greater focus
on ensuring there is a smooth migration path from 2.0.2 to 2.1.3?
Once we have clearly identified any issues and ensured that we have
adequate directions we could notify the user community that there will
be no further 2.0.* releases and encourage them to move to 2.1.3. It
might actually be easier for us to release 2.0.3 in the short term,
but sooner or later users will have to address the migration issues
... so I'm just wondering if it might be a better use of our time to
address those migration issues now.
Joe
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
The 2.0.x brach got sidelined by an intermittent
ConcurrentModificationException during stress testing. But, recently
there were a number of security issues found that apply to 2.0.2.
So, I think it's time to start the discussion for a Geronimo 2.0.3
release (It actually already was started).
Server fixes/enhancements are listed on the Release Status page (work in
progress)-
http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-203-release-status.html
Details on included security fixes in dependent components are listed on
the Security page -
http://geronimo.apache.org/20x-security-report.html
I have already begun moving issues into 2.0.4 - Does anyone have
additional fixes they would like to include in 2.0.3 before we cut the
branch and start the release process?
If I have moved an issue that you want to work on (And you have time to
work on it right away) move it back onto a 2.0.3 fix and assign it to
yourself.
Jay
