+1 on 3 weeks though I am not sure whether I can contribute much :(. My apologies
Regards Manu On 6/27/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 on 3 weeks On 6/27/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We should probably set a date on this so we're motivated to resolve > issues and start getting our release gears greased and moving. > > What would be your preference? > > - 1 week > - 2 weeks > - 3 weeks > - 1 month > > My preference would be (in this order): > - 3 weeks (including voting and publishing) > - 2 weeks (if we're not too disciplined and expect to lag a week) > > I'd like to see us get our hot deploy hooked up, some ejb validation > code in there, and our sun schema issue cleared up. > > What are your preferences? (as usual floor is open to everyone, not > just committers) > > -David > > > On Jun 1, 2007, at 2:49 PM, David Blevins wrote: > > > I think we're ready to pull the trigger on 3.0 > > > > Thinks look pretty great: http://cwiki.apache.org/OPENEJB/ejb-3- > > roadmap.html > > > > No service-ref support in OpenEJB standalone yet, I don't think > > that's enough to hold us up though. Compliance-wise, we couldn't > > look much better ;) > > > > What do people think? > > > > I can think of the interceptor issues that Prasad has raised, but > > fixes for those could easily go into a 3.0.1, which based on passed > > experience will likely have to rush out soon after people start > > complaining about 3.0.0 :) > > > > -David > > > > On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Manu George wrote: > > > >> +1 for this idea as well > >> > >> On 3/21/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> On 3/21/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Mar 20, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > Hi Dain... > >>> > > > >>> > > I like your idea, but IMHO I think we have to wait until we make > >>> > > sure that > >>> > > the minimum set of EJB3.0 features are implemented, by examining > >>> > > the list > >>> > > provided by DBlevins. Then we can make the OEJB3.0 release > >>> out to > >>> > > the light. > >>> > > >>> > We should probably go through that list and decide what the must > >>> > haves are and what we can do without. > >>> > > >>> > For example, IMHO we can do without the Validation, iTests, and > >>> > Examples sections. We could definitely work on the validation > >>> part > >>> > while people are giving us some initial feedback on the release > >>> > content overall. I suspect user feedback might also how we > >>> > prioritize completing the itests. > >>> > > >>> > Might be some other ones that aren't critical too. > >>> > > >>> > -David > >>> > >>> > >>> +1 for this idea > >>> > >>> > On 3/21/07, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >> > >>> > >> I think we should just ship what we have now as "3.0". We > >>> have tons > >>> > >> of new exciting stuff and people can start working with it. > >>> As they > >>> > >> find issues we can release updates. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> I've been mainly working on the 2.x stuff and it is pretty > >>> close to > >>> > >> be fully complete, but I don't think it is worth waiting > >>> around for > >>> > >> some infrequently used features to be finished. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> -dain > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> On Mar 16, 2007, at 4:15 PM, David Blevins wrote: > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > I've been wondering when we should start kicking some > >>> releases from > >>> > >> > the 3x branch out the door. I can't seem to come up with > >>> a good > >>> > >> > answer even in my own mind about when this should be. > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > Seems we're doing really great as far as functionality and > >>> > >> > implementing EJB3 is concerned. We still have a ways to > >>> go, but > >>> > >> > not too far actually. > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > Should we start shipping releases? If so what do we call > >>> them and > >>> > >> > when do we start? If not what do we need to get done? > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > Thoughts? (floor's open to all, committer or not) > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > -David > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > -- > >>> > > Thanks > >>> > > - Mohammad Nour > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Thanks > >>> - Mohammad Nour > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour
