+1 It's a good idea to detach the GEP version from Geronimo server. It's much simpler to keep only one version GEP that supports different version geronimo servers.
But, I guess there might be some reasons behind for current GEP release model. More comments from people who knows the background will be appreciated. On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Johannes Weberhofer < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear John! > > I'll like to bring this into discussion again: > > Is it really necessary, to have so many GEP versions in parallel? > Shouldn't there be always one version which supports all current Geronimo > versions? > > Currently, there is eg. GEP_2.1.7 (when I'm right), which supports > G<2.1.7; GEP_2.2 supports G=2.2 and G<2.1.2 (or similar) etc. > > I think, that's confusing for someone who likes to install the GEP > plugins. I'd recomment to remove all the older versions, and have only one > recent version. 3.0.0 could support everything up to 3.0.0; in case a > G2.2.1 will be released, there could be a new GEP 3.0.0.1, which adds > support to that... > > Best regards, > Johannes > > Am Thu Jul 12 10:31:25 2012 schrieb Yi Xiao: > > Hi All, >> >> As Geronimo 3.0.0 is released, I think it's the time for releasing >> GEP3.0.0 >> >> I've create the branch https://svn.apache.org/repos/** >> asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-**plugin/branches/3.0<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/3.0>to >> track the code for release, the base line is @1344906 in trunk, >> I didn't create the branch from the latest revision as >> GERONIMODEVTOOLS-796 and GERONIMODEVTOOLS-791 also need the server >> supports, but Geronimo3.0.0 has been released. >> >> However, I will merge other important jiras after 796 into GEP3.0.0 for >> better user experience and then follow the release process. >> >> Have any other suggestions? >> >> -- >> Best regards! >> >> >> John Xiao >> >> > -- > Johannes Weberhofer > Weberhofer GmbH, Austria, Vienna > -- Shawn
