+1 I prefer trunk to 4.0, and 3.0-beta branch to 3.0 branch.
-Rex 2012/3/29 Jarek Gawor <[email protected]> > 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 > >> > > > -- Lei Wang (Rex) rwonly AT apache.org
