Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
So, what is the new timeframe to TCK and release this puppy? --jason On Jan 29, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Joe Bohn wrote: Kevan Miller wrote: All, This note is a bit overdue (it's been a distracting start to the New Year for me). Time, IMO, for us to get focused on our 2.1 release. As David Jencks has pointed out. We need to start cleaning out the 2.1 Jiras. It looks like I've got several open that have been fixed, either by additional development activities or redundant jira's. First step is to take a look at Jira's that you've created and make sure they are still valid and if you think it's important that they be fixed for 2.1. We also need to be taking a close look at our current functionality. Make sure things are working the way we want them to... Especially need to cast a critical eye on our the usability aspects of the new 2.1. Along the way, will be great if we can start pulling docs together. I started running tests last night. Right away, I'm noticing little things like warning messages being sent to STDOUT, etc. I'll start registering problem areas that I'm seeing. I'd like to set a target of 2 weeks for reviewing and fixing problems. After that would start the branching, final tck, and packaging work. If we feel this might negatively impact post-2.1 development activities. We can consider creating a 2.1 branch sooner... Thoughts? --kevan I've recently upgraded our image to utilize the newly released xbean 3.3, myfaces 1.2.2, geronimo-transaction 2.1, and geronimo-connector 2.1. Earlier I had updated the Tomcat build image and created a private build for Pluto. I think the only snapshots left in our image are some of the specs (JACC JASPI ... and it looks like Guillaume is working those along with upgrading others) and OpenEjb. Joe
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
BTW when we branch for 2.1 I plan to remove the jaspi dependent code and remove the jaspi spec dependency. meanwhile someone :-) should make sure the in-vote specs pass the tck. thanks david jencks On Jan 30, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: So, what is the new timeframe to TCK and release this puppy? --jason On Jan 29, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Joe Bohn wrote: Kevan Miller wrote: All, This note is a bit overdue (it's been a distracting start to the New Year for me). Time, IMO, for us to get focused on our 2.1 release. As David Jencks has pointed out. We need to start cleaning out the 2.1 Jiras. It looks like I've got several open that have been fixed, either by additional development activities or redundant jira's. First step is to take a look at Jira's that you've created and make sure they are still valid and if you think it's important that they be fixed for 2.1. We also need to be taking a close look at our current functionality. Make sure things are working the way we want them to... Especially need to cast a critical eye on our the usability aspects of the new 2.1. Along the way, will be great if we can start pulling docs together. I started running tests last night. Right away, I'm noticing little things like warning messages being sent to STDOUT, etc. I'll start registering problem areas that I'm seeing. I'd like to set a target of 2 weeks for reviewing and fixing problems. After that would start the branching, final tck, and packaging work. If we feel this might negatively impact post-2.1 development activities. We can consider creating a 2.1 branch sooner... Thoughts? --kevan I've recently upgraded our image to utilize the newly released xbean 3.3, myfaces 1.2.2, geronimo-transaction 2.1, and geronimo- connector 2.1. Earlier I had updated the Tomcat build image and created a private build for Pluto. I think the only snapshots left in our image are some of the specs (JACC JASPI ... and it looks like Guillaume is working those along with upgrading others) and OpenEjb. Joe
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
I guess that Kevan needs to chime in on that ... but I think Friday is still reasonable to branch and start the release work if we can get the critical issues resolved by then. I've been running TCK continuously and fixing and/or pointing things out when I notice problems. We're generally at 100% with problems creeping up every few days and getting resolved. Joe Jason Dillon wrote: So, what is the new timeframe to TCK and release this puppy? --jason On Jan 29, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Joe Bohn wrote: Kevan Miller wrote: All, This note is a bit overdue (it's been a distracting start to the New Year for me). Time, IMO, for us to get focused on our 2.1 release. As David Jencks has pointed out. We need to start cleaning out the 2.1 Jiras. It looks like I've got several open that have been fixed, either by additional development activities or redundant jira's. First step is to take a look at Jira's that you've created and make sure they are still valid and if you think it's important that they be fixed for 2.1. We also need to be taking a close look at our current functionality. Make sure things are working the way we want them to... Especially need to cast a critical eye on our the usability aspects of the new 2.1. Along the way, will be great if we can start pulling docs together. I started running tests last night. Right away, I'm noticing little things like warning messages being sent to STDOUT, etc. I'll start registering problem areas that I'm seeing. I'd like to set a target of 2 weeks for reviewing and fixing problems. After that would start the branching, final tck, and packaging work. If we feel this might negatively impact post-2.1 development activities. We can consider creating a 2.1 branch sooner... Thoughts? --kevan I've recently upgraded our image to utilize the newly released xbean 3.3, myfaces 1.2.2, geronimo-transaction 2.1, and geronimo-connector 2.1. Earlier I had updated the Tomcat build image and created a private build for Pluto. I think the only snapshots left in our image are some of the specs (JACC JASPI ... and it looks like Guillaume is working those along with upgrading others) and OpenEjb. Joe
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
On Jan 30, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: So, what is the new timeframe to TCK and release this puppy? Well, my two week period for reviewing and fixing problems ends today. Things are looking pretty good, IMO. I think we branch on Friday and start turning the screws. --kevan
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
Aighty, sounds good to me :-) --jason On Jan 30, 2008, at 1:17 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 30, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: So, what is the new timeframe to TCK and release this puppy? Well, my two week period for reviewing and fixing problems ends today. Things are looking pretty good, IMO. I think we branch on Friday and start turning the screws. --kevan
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
Kevan Miller wrote: All, This note is a bit overdue (it's been a distracting start to the New Year for me). Time, IMO, for us to get focused on our 2.1 release. As David Jencks has pointed out. We need to start cleaning out the 2.1 Jiras. It looks like I've got several open that have been fixed, either by additional development activities or redundant jira's. First step is to take a look at Jira's that you've created and make sure they are still valid and if you think it's important that they be fixed for 2.1. We also need to be taking a close look at our current functionality. Make sure things are working the way we want them to... Especially need to cast a critical eye on our the usability aspects of the new 2.1. Along the way, will be great if we can start pulling docs together. I started running tests last night. Right away, I'm noticing little things like warning messages being sent to STDOUT, etc. I'll start registering problem areas that I'm seeing. I'd like to set a target of 2 weeks for reviewing and fixing problems. After that would start the branching, final tck, and packaging work. If we feel this might negatively impact post-2.1 development activities. We can consider creating a 2.1 branch sooner... Thoughts? --kevan I've recently upgraded our image to utilize the newly released xbean 3.3, myfaces 1.2.2, geronimo-transaction 2.1, and geronimo-connector 2.1. Earlier I had updated the Tomcat build image and created a private build for Pluto. I think the only snapshots left in our image are some of the specs (JACC JASPI ... and it looks like Guillaume is working those along with upgrading others) and OpenEjb. Joe
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
On Jan 22, 2008 12:44 AM, Jay D. McHugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 - Two weeks sounds good to me. It's 6 days ago when Kevan put it to discussion so it's really a week away from that day ;-) Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
On Jan 20, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I'm going to start working on this... looks like there are more problems that I thought, though not hard to fix... just a PITA. --jason On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 19, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On Jan 18, 2008 3:15 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Jason. We shouldn't be carrying forward the current structure. And, I think we have enough time to fix this problem while we are fixing other issues with the release. Even though I tend to agree I understand the pain of our end users who suffer from working with 2.0.2 when we keep telling them use the unofficial 2.1 release and I wish we could release G 2.1 as soon as possible. No issues should be counted any more. Just go ahead, release and keep working on 2.2 release. Jacek, Let's level-set for a second. From my original note on this subject: On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: I'd like to set a target of 2 weeks for reviewing and fixing problems. After that would start the branching, final tck, and packaging work. If we feel this might negatively impact post-2.1 development activities. We can consider creating a 2.1 branch sooner... Are you ok with the 2 week target for reviewing the current trunk codebase and resolving issues? The structure of our pom's are one of the issues that I think have been identified in our current codebase. Seems like we can resolve the problem within our 2 week timeframe. So, I'm all for fixing the poms... --kevan
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
+1 - Two weeks sounds good to me. The big feature that I had been waiting for was the Dojo upgrade and that is done. I can start looking at the 'STDOUT' messages. I would assume that sending messages to the console during tests would be fine (yes?) and that the problem would really be when messages from a running server get sent there as well. Or should even the test messages be getting sent to a log? Jay Kevan Miller wrote: All, This note is a bit overdue (it's been a distracting start to the New Year for me). Time, IMO, for us to get focused on our 2.1 release. As David Jencks has pointed out. We need to start cleaning out the 2.1 Jiras. It looks like I've got several open that have been fixed, either by additional development activities or redundant jira's. First step is to take a look at Jira's that you've created and make sure they are still valid and if you think it's important that they be fixed for 2.1. We also need to be taking a close look at our current functionality. Make sure things are working the way we want them to... Especially need to cast a critical eye on our the usability aspects of the new 2.1. Along the way, will be great if we can start pulling docs together. I started running tests last night. Right away, I'm noticing little things like warning messages being sent to STDOUT, etc. I'll start registering problem areas that I'm seeing. I'd like to set a target of 2 weeks for reviewing and fixing problems. After that would start the branching, final tck, and packaging work. If we feel this might negatively impact post-2.1 development activities. We can consider creating a 2.1 branch sooner... Thoughts? --kevan
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
On Jan 21, 2008, at 6:44 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote: +1 - Two weeks sounds good to me. The big feature that I had been waiting for was the Dojo upgrade and that is done. I can start looking at the 'STDOUT' messages. I would assume that sending messages to the console during tests would be fine (yes?) and that the problem would really be when messages from a running server get sent there as well. Or should even the test messages be getting sent to a log? Well, I was thinking of warning/error messages that aren't really warning/error messages. For example: 19:25:17,715 WARN [AbstractGBeanReference] GBean references are not using proxies and the Tomcat restricted listeners error message... --kevan
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
On Jan 19, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On Jan 18, 2008 3:15 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Jason. We shouldn't be carrying forward the current structure. And, I think we have enough time to fix this problem while we are fixing other issues with the release. Even though I tend to agree I understand the pain of our end users who suffer from working with 2.0.2 when we keep telling them use the unofficial 2.1 release and I wish we could release G 2.1 as soon as possible. No issues should be counted any more. Just go ahead, release and keep working on 2.2 release. Jacek, Let's level-set for a second. From my original note on this subject: On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: I'd like to set a target of 2 weeks for reviewing and fixing problems. After that would start the branching, final tck, and packaging work. If we feel this might negatively impact post-2.1 development activities. We can consider creating a 2.1 branch sooner... Are you ok with the 2 week target for reviewing the current trunk codebase and resolving issues? The structure of our pom's are one of the issues that I think have been identified in our current codebase. Seems like we can resolve the problem within our 2 week timeframe. So, I'm all for fixing the poms... --kevan
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
On Jan 20, 2008 5:13 PM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you ok with the 2 week target for reviewing the current trunk codebase and resolving issues? I'm ok as long as it won't take us longer than 2 weeks to release Geronimo 2.1 as is with all identified issues described in RELEASE_NOTES or such. Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
I'm going to start working on this... looks like there are more problems that I thought, though not hard to fix... just a PITA. --jason On Jan 20, 2008, at 8:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jan 19, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On Jan 18, 2008 3:15 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Jason. We shouldn't be carrying forward the current structure. And, I think we have enough time to fix this problem while we are fixing other issues with the release. Even though I tend to agree I understand the pain of our end users who suffer from working with 2.0.2 when we keep telling them use the unofficial 2.1 release and I wish we could release G 2.1 as soon as possible. No issues should be counted any more. Just go ahead, release and keep working on 2.2 release. Jacek, Let's level-set for a second. From my original note on this subject: On Jan 16, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: I'd like to set a target of 2 weeks for reviewing and fixing problems. After that would start the branching, final tck, and packaging work. If we feel this might negatively impact post-2.1 development activities. We can consider creating a 2.1 branch sooner... Are you ok with the 2 week target for reviewing the current trunk codebase and resolving issues? The structure of our pom's are one of the issues that I think have been identified in our current codebase. Seems like we can resolve the problem within our 2 week timeframe. So, I'm all for fixing the poms... --kevan
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
On Jan 18, 2008 3:15 AM, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Jason. We shouldn't be carrying forward the current structure. And, I think we have enough time to fix this problem while we are fixing other issues with the release. Even though I tend to agree I understand the pain of our end users who suffer from working with 2.0.2 when we keep telling them use the unofficial 2.1 release and I wish we could release G 2.1 as soon as possible. No issues should be counted any more. Just go ahead, release and keep working on 2.2 release. Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
I think we need to fix the pom parentage post reorganization before we can branch for a 2.1 release. IMO the reorg is only half done... and really needs to be finished. --jason On Jan 16, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: All, This note is a bit overdue (it's been a distracting start to the New Year for me). Time, IMO, for us to get focused on our 2.1 release. As David Jencks has pointed out. We need to start cleaning out the 2.1 Jiras. It looks like I've got several open that have been fixed, either by additional development activities or redundant jira's. First step is to take a look at Jira's that you've created and make sure they are still valid and if you think it's important that they be fixed for 2.1. We also need to be taking a close look at our current functionality. Make sure things are working the way we want them to... Especially need to cast a critical eye on our the usability aspects of the new 2.1. Along the way, will be great if we can start pulling docs together. I started running tests last night. Right away, I'm noticing little things like warning messages being sent to STDOUT, etc. I'll start registering problem areas that I'm seeing. I'd like to set a target of 2 weeks for reviewing and fixing problems. After that would start the branching, final tck, and packaging work. If we feel this might negatively impact post-2.1 development activities. We can consider creating a 2.1 branch sooner... Thoughts? --kevan
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
On Jan 17, 2008 6:39 PM, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we need to fix the pom parentage post reorganization before we can branch for a 2.1 release. IMO the reorg is only half done... and really needs to be finished. I disagree. We've been living with it for a while and am sure we can live with it a bit longer. I'm against any issues/tasks that would make the 2.1 release delayed. I don't want to tell our users that 2.1 is the solution to their problems as it doesn't exist yet. I've seen a lot of answers with 2.1 as the solution so if we've suggested using 2.1 it's ready. There's no need to wait any longer and it should be released now provided it passes TCK. Any other issues can be fixed in 2.2. Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
It should take a day or two to fix, nothing significant. It should have been done when the modules were reorganized... and I have no idea why it was not. The reorg task should be completed before we release. I don't understand why folks tend to discount build related issues. Maybe we should consult the resident m2 expert? :-P --jason On Jan 17, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On Jan 17, 2008 6:39 PM, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we need to fix the pom parentage post reorganization before we can branch for a 2.1 release. IMO the reorg is only half done... and really needs to be finished. I disagree. We've been living with it for a while and am sure we can live with it a bit longer. I'm against any issues/tasks that would make the 2.1 release delayed. I don't want to tell our users that 2.1 is the solution to their problems as it doesn't exist yet. I've seen a lot of answers with 2.1 as the solution so if we've suggested using 2.1 it's ready. There's no need to wait any longer and it should be released now provided it passes TCK. Any other issues can be fixed in 2.2. Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: 2.1 Release -- Banging the drum
On Jan 17, 2008, at 7:46 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: It should take a day or two to fix, nothing significant. It should have been done when the modules were reorganized... and I have no idea why it was not. The reorg task should be completed before we release. I don't understand why folks tend to discount build related issues. Maybe we should consult the resident m2 expert? :-P I agree with Jason. We shouldn't be carrying forward the current structure. And, I think we have enough time to fix this problem while we are fixing other issues with the release. --kevan --jason On Jan 17, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On Jan 17, 2008 6:39 PM, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we need to fix the pom parentage post reorganization before we can branch for a 2.1 release. IMO the reorg is only half done... and really needs to be finished. I disagree. We've been living with it for a while and am sure we can live with it a bit longer. I'm against any issues/tasks that would make the 2.1 release delayed. I don't want to tell our users that 2.1 is the solution to their problems as it doesn't exist yet. I've seen a lot of answers with 2.1 as the solution so if we've suggested using 2.1 it's ready. There's no need to wait any longer and it should be released now provided it passes TCK. Any other issues can be fixed in 2.2. Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
