Re: Press Release for Geronimo 2.0.1
I should be sending a revised copy later today. I still need to know the contact person for this PR; this is the name, title and phone number of who should be contacted should anyone reading the PR have any questions. Since we submit the PR in MS Word format, that is how I will be sending it to the G team for review. I will send it, however, to the G pmc.
Re: Press Release for Geronimo 2.0.1
We will review this and provide any feedback to you. Once approved by both you guys and the PRC, we will submit it for the wire. It is not an instantaneous process taking 24-48 hours, and so doing that in conjunction with when you want the PR released is some scheduling fun :) For example, you don't want it to be released at the end of the week. On Aug 21, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Please advise when this will go out. Thanks Final Apache Geronimo 2.0.1 released by Apache Software Foundation date/time/location—The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) announced today the release of Apache Geronimo 2.0.1 (http:// geronimo.apache.org http://geronimo.apache.org/). This release represents the latest open source Java Enterprise Edition 5.0 application server from the Apache Geronimo project, and continues the evolution of the Apache Geronimo server by adding new features and capabilities to a fully compliant and certified Java Enterprise Edition 5.0 container suitable for everything from a development environment to enterprise-level deployments. The newly released Apache Geronimo 2.0.1 breaks new ground as the first open source Application Server to provide two certified JAX- WS Web Services implementations: Apache Axis2 and Apache CXF. This capability further highlights the flexibility of Apache Geronimo which also provides two certified web container implementations: Apache Tomcat and Jetty. Geronimo 2.0.1 also introduces new features such as simplified development, improved diagnostics and flexible assemblies. Simplified deployment is achieved through the use of standards based programming model enhancements found in Java Enterprise Edition 5.0. This includes support for the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB3) specification as implemented by the Apache OpenEJB and Apache OpenJPA projects. Here is a list of some of these programming enhancements: - Streamlined development options provided with Java Enterprise Edition 5.0 - EJB 3.0 persistence (Java Persistence Architecture) - A programming model that uses annotations to express developer defaults in the source code Improved diagnostic capabilities include enhanced logging, class loader viewer as well as JMX browser which are all available from the web based console. Change logging levels on the fly as well as view existing logs with a set of filters. Looking for a class and wondering where it came from? The class loader viewer let’s you find them. Want to see or change the attributes for MBeans in the server? The JMX browser allows you to navigate the MBeans in the server in a simple tree format without having to hook up external consoles or third party products. In addition, the Certification Authority portlet provides a user friendly interface to setup a Certification Authority, your own Public-Key Infrastructure, and use server/client Digital Certificates for securing your applications. Flexible assemblies are realized through the project’s continued promotion of the ”Little G” 2.0.1 —a lightweight container offering for projects that don’t need the full feature set of Java Enterprise Edition 5.0. Perfect for web-service and SOA deployments, Little G brings the modularity, manageability and extensibility of Apache Geronimo to a lightweight assembly that is small in footprint but full of capability. This flexible, user-friendly, and easy-to-configure application server is built from best-of-breed open source components and is fully licensed under the Apache Software License, offering multiple benefits to organizations and their development teams. They can use Apache Geronimo as-is or, if they so choose, create their own custom offerings without the restrictions imposed by other open source licenses. Flexibility and choice, you have both with Apache Geronimo. The software can be downloaded for free from the Apache Geronimo web site ( http://geronimo.apache.org http://geronimo.apache.org/ / ). About the Apache Software Foundation The Apache Software Foundation provides organizational, legal and financial support for a broad range of open source software projects. The Foundation provides an established framework for intellectual property and financial contributions, while simultaneously limiting contributors' potential legal exposure. Through a collaborative and meritocratic development process, Apache projects deliver enterprise-grade, freely available software products that attract large communities of users. The pragmatic Apache License makes it easy for all users--commercial and individual--to deploy Apache products. For more information on The Apache Software Foundation, please visit http://www.apache.org http://www.apache.org//. Java, J2EE, Java Enterprise Edition, and Enterprise JavaBeans are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States and other
Re: Press Release for Geronimo 2.0.1
Quick look: On Aug 21, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: OpenJPA projects. Here is a list of some of these programming enhancements: Here is a list... sounds clunky... we will reword that. ... continued promotion of the ”Little G” 2.0.1 —a lightweight Also sounds clunky: of _the_ Little G... I recommend of Little G instead (drop the 'the'). Also, is promotion the right word? How about development or usage...
Re: Press Release for Geronimo 2.0.1
On Aug 21, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: On Aug 21, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: We will review this and provide any feedback to you. Once approved by both you guys and the PRC, we will submit it for the wire. It is not an instantaneous process taking 24-48 hours, and so doing that in conjunction with when you want the PR released is some scheduling fun :) For example, you don't want it to be released at the end of the week. We're ready to go live. Our vote is complete and we'll likely update our website today. Tuesday is always a good day for an announce but thursday would be great. If not before then I guess we'd have to wait on the press release till next week. I was planning on hitting Info Q and The Server Side tomorrow. What are your thoughts on synchronizing these activities? Even if we submitted the PR for release today, the earliest it would go out would be Thurs. There in an inherent latency in the release process in the wire service.
Re: Press Release for Geronimo 2.0.1
On Aug 21, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: On Aug 21, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Even if we submitted the PR for release today, the earliest it would go out would be Thurs. There in an inherent latency in the release process in the wire service. Thursday would be fine. We have agreement on the Press Release based on our discussion. I liked your comments; always nice to work with someone who can read and write something other than a computer language ;-P Appreciate all your help on this. Matt, I must not be making myself clear... The PRC must approve the PR. Once that's done, then we need, of course, you guys to approve any and all changes (for example, who is the contact person for this PR?). Finally, once all that is done, we send it to our wire-service for release, at which point it normally takes 24-48 hours. This is not an immediate process. We're trying to update the information about the PRC to remove this misconception that it's same-day service. Normally, since the PRC is, as with every other cmmt in the ASF 100% volunteers, we require a week.
Re: DRAFT Press Release
IMO, as written this lacks the pizzazz to be a PR... Tart it up a bit :) On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Please include your updates and comments on this press release. After Thursday I'll forward to the PRC for their review with our comments. I'm cross-posting here to give the PRC a heads up. DRAFT Apache Software Foundation Announces Release Of Apache Geronimo Version 2.0 date/time/pre-amble -- The Apache Software Foundation is pleased to announce the release of Apache Geronimo Version 2.0, an open source Java Enterprise Edition 5.0 application server from the Apache Geronimo project. This release continues the evolution of the Apache Geronimo server, adding new features and capabilities to a fully compliant Java Enterprise Edition container suitable for everything from development to enterprise deployments. Along with many new features, Apache Geronimo Version 2.0 introduces several options for clustering and simplified deployment. Developers can quickly take advantage of the streamlined development options provided with Java Enterprise Edition 5.0. These include EJB 3.0 persistence as well as new programming model changes that use annotations to express developer defaults right in the source code. The configuration and management console has also been upgraded with several usability improvements such as a JNDI viewer and JMX browser. The project continues to make available its assembly called Little G Version 2.0, a lightweight application server for applications that don't need the full feature set of Java Enterprise Edition 5.0. Perfect for web-service and SOA deployments, Little G brings the modularity, manageability and extensibility of Apache Geronimo to a lightweight, non-Java Enterprise Edition footprint. This flexible, easy-to-use, and easy-to-configure application server is built from best-of-breed open source components and is fully licensed under the Apache Software License, offering multiple benefits to organizations and their development teams. The software is available now for free download from the Apache Geronimo web site (http://geronimo.apache.org/). About The Apache Software Foundation The Apache Software Foundation provides organizational, legal and financial support for a broad range of open source software projects. The Foundation provides an established framework for intellectual property and financial contributions that simultaneously limits contributors' potential legal exposure. Through a collaborative and meritocratic development process, Apache projects deliver enterprise-grade, freely available software products that attract large communities of users. The pragmatic Apache License makes it easy for all users, commercial and individual, to deploy Apache products. For more information on The Apache Software Foundation, please visit http://www.apache.org/ . Java, J2EE and Java Enterprise Edition are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States and other countries. All other trademarks or registered trademarks herein are property of their respective owners. DRAFT
Re: [Code donation] J2G Conversion tool
Since these are filed under areas available and viewable by an officer, the PMC chair, if so inclined, can keep track of it. On Mar 15, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Paul McMahan wrote: Thanks Jim. For future reference what's the best way to ask for this type of verification? Should we use [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best wishes, Paul On 3/14/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The IBM and Covalent grants for the J2G Migration toolset (as described here and in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ GERONIMO-2743) have been rec'd and filed.
Re: [Code donation] J2G Conversion tool
The IBM and Covalent grants for the J2G Migration toolset (as described here and in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ GERONIMO-2743) have been rec'd and filed.
Re: [VOTE] J2G Conversion tool acceptance
On Jan 31, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: Filip, OK. Now I'm confused. Do you want Geronimo to accept a code donation? Or do you want to start a new project in incubator? I thought it was the former (and I'm pretty sure you do, too). The process IIUC is roughly 1. Geronimo votes to accept the donation 2. The Geronimo project fills out some paperwork (update an html page and fill out the IP Clearance form -- http:// incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html) 3. The Incubator PMC is notified of the donation and given 48 hours to raise any objections. The Incubator is always involved for any large, existing, external codebase, even if it is simply to check the IP clearance issues. This is Filip's intent, afaik.
Re: Analyst Request: RedMonk seeking Contacts for Apache ESB Research
Acknowledged that both ServiceMix and Synapse will provide info... ServiceMix will ensure that it is clear that they are still in incubation; Synapse has graduated so no such restriction is required. Paul: please forward this to the Synapse/WS PMC.
Re: Dojo Toolkit inclusion to Geronimo
Wouldn't it be best to, if Dojo is going to be a separate module to actually see if they would consider it being an ASF project? Other ASF projects other than Geronimo would have great use for it. On Sep 14, 2006, at 2:45 AM, Christopher M. Cardona wrote: Gianny, Thanks again for finding time to look at the patch. Sorry to hear that it didn’t worked out smoothly in Safari. I agree with you that we should find a better way to include/checkin Dojo in G. I decided to include the Dojo source in the patch to make it easier for people like you who want to look at it without doing additional work like downloading some distribution. Your suggestion of expanding the Dojo files upon build is fine but I think checking in Dojo as a separate module (webapp) as suggested by Paul has an advantage of being reused by other webapps deployed in G simply by making the webapp’s parent the Dojo module. Furthermore, I was able to verify that this works. I’m still open for other suggestions but if we are left with these 2 options I’ll give +1 to checking in Dojo as a separate module. Any thoughts? Best wishes, chris Gianny Damour wrote: Hi Chris, The JMX Viewer portlet is finally working for me. Actually, it seems that due to a Dojo known issue, this portlet does not work with Safari :(; having said that, it works really nicely, and I really mean really nicely, with IE. Regarding your patch, I believe that this is a large piece of work; unfortunately, I cannot appreciate it as this is the first time that I am seeing dojo in action. Also, I think that instead of checking in the dojo files directly at the right location, we should check in a tar.ball of these files and expand it upon build of the module. I think that this is better because this way we do know which files are dojo specifics (this is a minor detail). What do you think? It would be cool if other people could have a look to this patch; for sure, it really deserves it! Thanks, Gianny
Re: JPA Plugin patch
Are plugins specific to Geronimo and Geronimo alone? If so, then a sub-project might be a nice idea. If not, however, then there is little compelling need to make G even more bloated with efforts than it is, and making it a self-contained project would be best.
Re: Merge GERONIMO-2313 into 1.1.1??
Will there be a summary of the IRC discussion posted onlist? On Aug 16, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: After agonizing over this on IRC let's put in 2313. Close the door and start testing. David Jencks wrote: GERONIMO-2313 is a fairly serious security problem: basically ejb security is totally broken when the ejb is called from a web app. I think this could be merged easily from the 1.1 branch into 1.1.1, however it requires openejb changes as well. Alan suggested that since 1.1.1 is already delayed for security problems we might want to include this fix as well. I think this is a good idea but wait for Matt the release manager's approval. thanks david jencks
Re: Remaining 1.1 Issues
Not a vote in any way, but experience has shown (in various other projects) that those last minute additions almost invariably cause problems :) On May 23, 2006, at 1:43 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: I don't agree. 1.1 is not yet out the door, and if anything, it looks like 1.2 will take longer than anticipated. Minor changes, necessary, I vote 1.1. Remember, this change takes pressure off since we'll be able to release more features as plugins. I'm strongly in favor of taking things out of the critical path, whereas deferring to 1.2 will extend the critical path by another 3+ months. Thanks, Aaron On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that they are necessary. Let's put them in 1.2. 1.1 is almost out the door and adding new features at this point is very late in the game. We're currently 30 days past our original date and almost 5 months past the 1.0 release. Please defer these till 1.2. Matt Aaron Mulder wrote: We can call them what we want, but I think all the features are necessary, in particular in order to support plugins. The advantage of adding the first two features is that they let us take a lot of other features *out* of the critical path, and release them as plugins (also letting us support non-ASL licensed providers). Basically, the idea is to replace a properties file with a GBean, since you can't effectively add to a properties file at plugin installation time, but you can certainly add GBeans. Bottom line, it's a small impact change (console only, change the lookup logic that's already encapsulated in a helper class to do a GBean interface query instead of a properties file load), and it has significant benefits (new JMS providers or security providers can be added at runtime via plugins and do not need to be hardcoded into the Geronimo distribution). Thanks, Aaron On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Based on the list below I think 1,2 and 3 are new function and 4 is a bug fix. Aaron Mulder wrote: Here are the things that I still want to squeeze into 1.1: - fix console JMS to accept new providers at runtime - fix console security realms to accept new providers at runtime - add a missing Geronimo security provider to console security realms - fix hot deploy dir so it notices files updated while the server was down and deletes files if they are undeployed some other way There are also AFAIK a number of not-yet-applied patches to review. Yes, there are several. I'm testing some performance related code. I'm waiting and hoping Codehaus comes up soon :) Thanks, Aaron
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
On May 23, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Ken, et al, I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. IMO, this is a problem with these codebases then... The 3 +1s has been a very solid and reliable benchmark since before the start of the ASF. What can be done to increase involvement and diversity in those dev trees?
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
I'd be happy to follow the dev of these 2 trees On May 24, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and working on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. Since its a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however interest is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. Greg Stein wrote: A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more people involved? That it shouldn't be I'm off in my corner working on this stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes. IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of developers, and especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if you can get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of Geronimo's issues at the same time. IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's patched in and tested ... there are many changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from eyeballing it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't always need a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be fixed) I was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien. Right now its changing colors and packaging. IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get slowed down. Cheers, -g On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Ken, et al, I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader. Matt Jim Jagielski wrote: On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our community to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace, but... Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could have come up with after having read it. Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the board before making any decisions...
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our community to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace, but... Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could have come up with after having read it. Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the board before making any decisions...
Re: Geronimo 1.1 still dependent on Java 1.4.2?
On May 22, 2006, at 3:50 PM, Erin Mulder wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand that it is possible to run a properly configured instance of Geronimo using J2SE 5.0. That being said, the target audience of a Quick Start Guide/ Getting Started document is interested in getting an instance of Geronimo up and running as quickly as possible. If a user downloads Geronimo and runs java -jar bin/server.jar and gets an exception stacktrace (or three) using J2SE 5.0, and then runs the same command using Java 1.4.2 and does not get a stacktrace (regardless of whether Geronimo is actually usable or not), then within that context a dependency exists on Java 1.4.2. Geronimo 1.1 no longer prints warning messages when running under J2SE 5.0. Compliments of DayTrader no longer being a default app :)
Re: Geronimo 1.1 still dependent on Java 1.4.2?
On May 18, 2006, at 11:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Developers, I'm updating the Quick Start guide for Geronimo 1.1 (http://opensource.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/GERONIMO/ Geronimo+v1.1+-+Quick+start+-+Apache+Geronimo+for+the+impatient). Does Geronimo 1.1 out of the box still depend on Java 1.4.2? G does not depend on 1.4.2. You get some error messages when starting with 1.5.0, but that's due to the Daytrader app which is bundled with G. Also, CORBA support only works with 1.4.2, but that's not a G dependency IMO.
Re: [WARNING] - Mac users
On OS X, the java stuff are all symlinks. eg: java@ - /System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Versions/ CurrentJDK/Commands/java So the trick is to adjust the main CurrentJDK symlink in /System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Versions: lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel5 Apr 20 07:50 1.3@ - 1.3.1 drwxr-xr-x 8 root wheel 272 May 28 2005 1.3.1/ lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel5 Sep 14 2005 1.4@ - 1.4.2 drwxr-xr-x 8 root wheel 272 Jan 26 2005 1.4.2/ lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel5 Apr 20 07:50 1.5@ - 1.5.0 drwxr-xr-x 8 root wheel 272 Dec 2 11:14 1.5.0/ drwxr-xr-x 6 root wheel 204 Apr 20 07:50 A/ lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel1 Apr 20 07:50 Current@ - A lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel5 Apr 20 07:50 CurrentJDK@ - 1.5.0 A short shell script which adjusts CurrentJDK back and forth between 1.5.0 and 1.4.2 is all that's needed. The Java Preferences panel in Utilities doesn't cut it. On Apr 20, 2006, at 1:19 AM, Jeff Genender wrote: Yes...and before anyone asks... The JVM/JAVA_HOME/PATh was set to the 1.4 JVM. The OS seems to get mixed up about the path libs. Jeff Jeff Genender wrote: The last Java 5 update from Apple breaks the Geronimo 1.1 build for Mac OS X users. Symptoms (when tests are on) include getting the following error: Unable to obtain goal [multiproject:install-callback] -- /Users/powerbook/.maven/cache/maven-test-plugin-1.7/plugin.jelly: 134:-1: junit java.lang.NullPointerException or with tests off: The failure will occur in the J2EE Schema module with the following error: Unable to obtain goal [multiproject:install-callback] -- /Users/powerbook/.maven/cache/xmlbeans-maven-plugin-2.0.0-beta1/ plugin.jelly:83:-1: xmlbeans:SchemaCompilerWrapper javax/xml/namespace/QName (Unsupported major.minor version 49.0) This problem was corroborated by myself, Dain, David Blevins, and Alan Cabrera. Currently there is no work around, but we are investigating possible fixes. You are recommended to *NOT* update your Apple JVM at this time. Jeff
Re: Tomcat version in G1.1 for clustering
On Apr 19, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Dave Colasurdo wrote: Hmmm.. What level of Tomcat does the community want to include in G1.1? Background... Tomcat 5.5.9 - current working level in G1.0 and G1.1.. Clustering works.. TCK is testing with this level.. Tomcat 5.5.10-5.5.14 - clustering is broken Tomcat 5.5.15 - Clustering seems to work somewhat. We've encountered at least one bug. Filip (tomcat clustering developer) mentioned there are still some significant bugs in this level and advises us to move to 5.5.16. Tomcat 5.5.16 - Jeff has mentioned that he and David J had previously discovered some issues that required significant rework that he didn't want to tackle until G1.2.. So... Do we stick with 5.5.9 for G1.1 and move to 5.5.16+ in G1.2? I think 5.5.9 is safest, and baseline 5.5.17 for 1.2.
Re: Covalent and Geronimo support
On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: http://www.covalent.net/about/news/pressreleases.html?pressid=83 Let's put a link to that in the 'news' section on the project front page. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! Feeling very uncomfortable asking about this, for obvious reasons :), but with the updates going on with the site, could this be added in?
Re: Covalent and Geronimo support
Covalent Hat On I will get one from Covalent's PR dept... /Covalent Hat On My Hat On ... and make sure it's correct and forward it :) /My Hat On On Feb 15, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote: Hi Jim, Pls don't feel uncomfortable. Would you have a prepared speach for this announcement in the Geronimo News section (about a paragraph). I'll be glad to add it to the updated site. Look at the following example for an idea on how the section is structured. 2006-01-05 Geronimo Version 1.0 is now Available Geronimo Version 1.0 which has passed the J2EE Certification Test Suite is now available for download here. This release represents the combined efforts of many engineers from several OpenSource projects and individual contributors from around the world. Please download, use the product and provide your comments and feedback to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll squeeze this update in the JIRA as soon as I get it from you. Cheers! Hernan Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: http://www.covalent.net/about/news/pressreleases.html?pressid=83 Let's put a link to that in the 'news' section on the project front page. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! Feeling very uncomfortable asking about this, for obvious reasons :), but with the updates going on with the site, could this be added in?
Re: Roadmap, tasks and things to do?
On Jan 27, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote: I really like Dains idea. How about we update the TODO list or RoadMap with some of these ideas. Usually new people who are interested in contributing will take a peek there, so a current list of things to do is great from attracting more ppl. Speaking for myself, a big +1. With something as large as G, having small, easily bitten off tasks makes it easier for people to jump in :)
Re: What hidden agenda?
Within the ASF, the use of the development mailing list is *the* method of development discussion. That's the reason for it. Wikis are good for after the fact documentation. IRC is good when a small subset of developers need to get together quickly to talk about some aspects of development, but it should quickly and completely migrate to email after the pressing matters have been dealt with. Same with thinks like meetings over beer and stuff like that. The reason, of course, should be obvious: it excludes by its very nature other developers. And you can't have collaborative development when that happens. Also, in-the-open development via Email makes it easy to prevent such claims as back door activity. How can it be back door when it's openly discussed in the primary development scheme? In general, however, such things as we discussed this on IRC and we decided to do this and we'll post a summary on Email when we can is never a good idea, and can result in kindly words that development is always done on the mailing list to fiery words that people are trying to have their cake and eat it too by riding on the ASF name without adhering to its standard practices. This is an issue that every ASF project has had to deal with in one way or another.
Re: What hidden agenda?
I never considered this issue as anything serious at all. Quite the opposite; as I mentioned just about every ASF project has had this pop up. I was simply stating the general rule, without any sort of interpretation of the events that lead to it. :)
