Another way to look at it, would be based on Eclipse releases.
For Eclipse 3.3, we should only support Geronimo 2.0.x and 1.1.1.
When Geronimo 2.1 is released, we will still be using Eclipse 3.3
(v3.3.2 is targeted for March 2008), so either 1) we drop support for
1.1.1 users at that time or 2)
I agree with Kevan that we need to be practical here. Would 2.0 GEP
supports 2.0 level and all 2.0.X levels of geronimo?
Lin
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:08 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi everyone, I have a couple questions I'd like to discuss about the
Geronimo Eclipse plugin:
(1) I think N-2 is a good rule to go by.
On 10/23/07, Tim McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone, I have a couple questions I'd like to discuss about the
Geronimo
Eclipse plugin:
1. How many versions of the Geronimo server should we continue to
simultaneously
support in the
On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:08 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi everyone, I have a couple questions I'd like to discuss about
the Geronimo Eclipse plugin:
1. How many versions of the Geronimo server should we continue to
simultaneously support in the Geronimo Eclipse plugin ??
2. What level of
On 10/25/07, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:08 PM, Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi everyone, I have a couple questions I'd like to discuss about
the Geronimo Eclipse plugin:
1. How many versions of the Geronimo server should we continue to
simultaneously support
Hi everyone, I have a couple questions I'd like to discuss about the Geronimo
Eclipse plugin:
1. How many versions of the Geronimo server should we continue to simultaneously
support in the Geronimo Eclipse plugin ??
2. What level of support should we provide in the Eclipse plugin for the
For maintenance updates, I'd like to see 2 weeks or less, given we want users
to be able to download the latest server instance to use...
Maybe we need to start using a running branch for 2.0.x, like we do on the
server and have trunk for new features (like supporting 2.0 deployment plans).
So as not to get to far out of sync with the server I feel we should shoot for a
release date of 4 weeks after the 2.0.2 release of Geronimo. Does anyone have
other/better thoughts ??
Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, I would like to starting discussing what we think should be included
in the 2.0.1
I think the 4 week or less target after a Geronimo release is a good
one to keep.
Ted Kirby
On 10/4/07, Tim McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So as not to get to far out of sync with the server I feel we should shoot
for a
release date of 4 weeks after the 2.0.2 release of Geronimo. Does
Sounds good except No. 3 which doesn't have to happen in a maintenance
release. For No. 2, moving to released version is ideal as downloading
RCs sometimes takes way too long. What time frame are you looking at
releasing this 2.0.1?
Lin
Tim McConnell wrote:
Hi, I would like to starting
We have a major headache for #4, as pointed out in
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg51801.html
This might be the right time to get it resolved, before we put significant
efforts in that direction.
Request each of you to post your views suggestions on
#1 and #4 sound good to me.
#2 should be to updated the build and prereqs to use WTP 2.0.1 and Eclipse
3.3.1 (which should ship any day now) and we can then point users to the WTP
2.0.1 all-in-one bundle, to simplify everyones setup.
#3 is lower priority and shouldn't hold up a maintenance
WTP 2.0.1 GA is supposed to be today, so I'd shoot for that, not a
release candidate.
Let's make sure all the packaging bits are correct.
What timeframe are you thinking about for 2.0.1 release?
Ted Kirby
On 9/28/07, Tim McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I would like to starting
Hi, I would like to starting discussing what we think should be included in the
2.0.1 release of the Geronimo Eclipse Plugin. I have some very preliminary
thoughts that I have listed below but would like to encourage input from others.
My initial thoughts are:
1. High priority JIRAs
2.
Tim,
I tried to get the plugin running and ran into a problem. Actually,
two.
First, I was getting an error indicating that Dynamic Web Content of
2.4 was not valid for the server. I had restarted Eclipse and this
went away.
Second, I'm getting the following error when trying to
Matt,
Are you using WTP 2.0 it's pre-reqs as available from
http://download.eclipse.org/webtools/downloads/drops/R2.0/R-2.0-200706260303/?
- Shiva
On 9/5/07, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim,
I tried to get the plugin running and ran into a problem. Actually, two.
First, I was
16 matches
Mail list logo
