Sounds a good way forward - sorry, should've sent my reply to the M1 thread to this thread :-)
Marnie On 11/15/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thread name change - new topic.. To add to John's comments... if we are on option 3 (consensus holds tomorrow) we should do a M2 with all the other pieces also. like end of year time frame. We should include all the meaningful merges and some JIRA's, but doubt that any of the next publication of the spec will be included as the publication date will be to late to include in this version. -- agree again. In addition to persistence, new code generators, obviously maven, and some JMS fixes that can complete should go in. HA requires the spec update so that will need to be done Q1 with protocol update. Let's plan to start reworking M2 JIRA's later this week Carl. John O'Hara wrote: > If I understand Rob, persistence is looking pretty good. > So an M2 for Christmas might be worth just persistence and Maven. > Nailing JMS might be a long piece of string depending on how TCK testing > goes. I wouldn't bet on that for Christmas. > > M1 - something that works > M2 - works with persistence, builds purdy >
