Yes.. I think that is the best course of action. I think they are
pretty similar since I created the mina 2 version in late December. I
think the delta is rather small.
Jeff
On Jan 31, 2008, at 1:34 PM, "Sangjin Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just so I understand...
What is the direction we're taking? Just for the terminology sake,
I'll
call these versions
- g-ahc-v1: Geronimo AHC based on Mina 1.1 (the one that Rick and I
were
working on)
- g-ahc-v2: Geronimo AHC based on Mina trunk
- mina-ahc: Mina AHC that was refactored into asyncweb
Are we migrating changes from g-ahc-v1 to g-ahc-v2 first and will
try to
migrate them again from g-ahc-v2 to mina-ahc?
Thanks,
Sangjin
On Jan 30, 2008 6:36 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 1:49 PM, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Being that its in the sandbox...anything goes. ;-)
However...with that said...lets see what pans out here at Mina. I
would
certainly consider the delta now before we get 3 diverse
versions ;-)
Yes the preferred version is Mina 2.x.
Indeed! We might want to first make sure the two Geronimo forks are
merged
and using MINA 2.0. Meaning all the features and fixes in the one
based
on
MINA 1.1.x are put into the one based on MINA 2.0-M1.
That might bring the consolidated Geronimo fork closer to the MINA
version
in Asyncweb trunk. Then we can focus on how to merge these two
together?
Alex
