On 1/29/2010 1:26 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Any work you are willing to do along these lines would be great! I
wish we'd added an ee6 category a long time ago so we could have
associated all the work already done with it. It may be difficult to
find all the existing closed jiras that relate to already-implemented
ee6 features.
Do you think its appropriate to create new jiras for work that has
been done without benefit of a jira? The related commits won't have
the jira number in the commit message unless you go back and edit the
commit message. I personally don't think there is much to be gained
for this, I would only create jiras for work that has not yet been
done. So for your example of servlet 3.0... we've already done the
steps you list :-)
Just from the standpoint of being able to keep track of things, it would
be nice to have Jiras to keep track of items that are already
completed. In the case of OpenEJB, it sounded like they dealt with the
situation by linking the tracking Jira to ones that implemented the
actual work. I ran into this a lot while trying to put together the
wiki page on the jee6 work. Just trying to keep straight all of the
individual specs jars was an interesting exercise. It would be nice to
use the same mechanism to keep track of all of these, even if it means
having Jiras that don't have commits necessarily associated with them.
thanks
david jencks
On Jan 29, 2010, at 7:24 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
I've been trying to map the existing Jiras against the tentative
Geronomo 3.0 roadmap we have and with the existing set of Jiras we
have, it's proved to be fairly difficult to get a clear picture of
where we are, what work still needs to be done, and who's actually
working on what items. The OpenEJB project has done an excellent job
of setting up Jiras using major issues for specific enhancement areas
and subtask issues for individual pieces of work necessary to
complete the task. A simple wiki script makes it easy to get a good
picture of the work progress and the Jiras allow them to see who's
working on what task. Here's the web page with the consolidated
information:
http://openejb.apache.org/ejb-31-roadmap.html
I'd like to start doing something similar for the Geronimo 3.0
release. A good starting point would be to have a major Jira issue
for each of the Java EE 6 items that need to be updated. In other
words, for each spec item identified here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Road+map+for+Java+EE6+Web+Profile
there would be a major Jira issue plus additional subtasks that would
be required to implement the item. For example, the Servlet 3.0 task
might have the initial set of of Jiras:
Add Servlet 3.0 support
Implement servlet 3.0 spec jar
Upgrade geronimo to use servlet 3.0 spec jar
Upgrade tomcat plugin to Tomcat 7
Upgrade jetty plugin to Jetty 8
etc.
Additional subtasks can be added as additional work items are
identified.
This table on the roadmap page gives a nice starting set of major
tasks, but there are obviously other major tasks related to the OSGi
work. These can be handled in a similar way, but I suspect we should
gather an initial starting set here in the dev list so they can be
coordinated a little and the tracking page can be set up accordingly.
Does this sound like a reasonable plan? I'll volunteer to open the
initial set of Jiras and try to migrate the existing Jiras to
subtasks of the major categories if we have a consensus here.
Rick
