I'm open to move trunk to either 3.1 or 3.5/4.0 On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:24 AM, David Jencks <[email protected]>wrote:
> I do think we should release something like current beta as 3.0. I have a > slight preference for trunk to move to 4.0; at least to 3.5. At current > rate of progress it will be a very long time before the trunk code is > really ready. > > thanks > david jencks > > On Mar 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: > > > I consider the changes made in trunk quite substantial so I think I > > would call trunk 4.x and call beta branch 3.x. > > > > Jarek > > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Russell E Glaue <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> move current trunk to 3.1 and change current beta branch to 3.0. > >> +1 > >> > >> As long as 3.0-beta-2 passes Java EE 1.6 tests and also provides no > broken > >> core/primary functionality we have 2.2, we should stamp it as 3.0. > >> > >> 3.1 can focus on the continuation of 3.x enhancements. > >> > >> -RG > >> > >> > >> > >> On 03/28/2012 06:46 AM, Forrest Xia wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Shawn Jiang <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > >>> 1.x J2EE 1.4 > >>> 2.0 Java EE 1.5 > >>> 2.1 Java EE 1.5 > >>> 2.2 Java EE 1.5 > >>> 3.0 Java EE 1.6 > >>> > >>> Considering the previous practice, we'd better to move current > trunk to > >>> 3.1 > >>> and change current beta branch to 3.0. > >>> > >>> Sounds good. Any more idea? > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Forrest Xia <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Saw this query, have an idea about the current release roadmap. > >>> > >>> 1. Can we move the current incomplete trunk work to version 4 of > >>> geronimo? > >>> 2. Rename 3.0-beta branch as the formal 3.0 release? > >>> > >>> Any thoughts? > >>> > >>> Forrest > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: *Arsen Abdrakhmanov* <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >>> Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM > >>> Subject: Geronimo release cycle > >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear Geronimo Team, > >>> > >>> Actually, I am the fan of geronimo for more than 5 years > already. > >>> For the moment, I am promoting the usage of Geronimo as a > platform > >>> for > >>> non-critical applications in our company (banking industry in > KZ). > >>> According to our company's internal policy, only official > releases > >>> of > >>> open-source software products can be used for internal > >>> applications. > >>> > >>> Currently, the release cycle for Geronimo is about an year or > even > >>> longer, so it takes significant amount of time before we could > use > >>> an > >>> updated version of software with bug fixes and enhancements. > >>> > >>> Taking that into account, can you give any information on your > >>> plans to > >>> accelerate the release cycle for new versions of Geronimo? > >>> > >>> I think, it would be very useful for the whole geronimo user > >>> community, > >>> if the releases were published at least semi-anually. > >>> Hope, it can also increase the popularity of Geronimo among > other > >>> application servers. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Arsen Abdrakhmanov > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Regards, Forrest > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Shawn > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Regards, Forrest > >>> > >> > > -- Shawn
