On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
> So what version should we set GEP trunk to? For now, I'll switch to to
> 3.0.1-SNAPSHOT to match the server 3.0 branch but if there is a better
> idea I'll be glad to change it again.
>
3.0.1-SNAPSHOT sounds good.
>
> Jarek
>
> On Sun, Jul 1
So what version should we set GEP trunk to? For now, I'll switch to to
3.0.1-SNAPSHOT to match the server 3.0 branch but if there is a better
idea I'll be glad to change it again.
Jarek
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Yi Xiao wrote:
> yes, you are right.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM, J
yes, you are right.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Johannes Weberhofer <
jweberho...@weberhofer.at> wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.07.12 07:54, schrieb Yi Xiao:
>
> Hi Johannes,
>>
>> Thank you for your comments. I think it's a good suggestion :)
>>
>> The only risk is that the previous releases like 2.1.
Am 13.07.12 07:54, schrieb Yi Xiao:
Hi Johannes,
Thank you for your comments. I think it's a good suggestion :)
The only risk is that the previous releases like 2.1.7, 2.2.1 have separated
the fixed code in each branch, so we need to
get all the fix code and merge into 3.0 branch. I think we
Hi Johannes,
Thank you for your comments. I think it's a good suggestion :)
The only risk is that the previous releases like 2.1.7, 2.2.1 have
separated the fixed code in each branch, so we need to
get all the fix code and merge into 3.0 branch. I think we could create a
task to complete it.
On
Yes, that's another topic the community needs to discuss. For Geronimo
1.0 branch and 2.0 branch. There's no much users and there's no
activities in community for quite a time. I think it's also the good time
to discuss if we need to drop 1.0 and 2.0 support officially.
If the community can
Agree that it is better to have one GEP, which supports all the versions.
But I am thinking that we may need to consider more for the GEP version
numbers. In the past, I guess that, while users installed Geronimo 2.2.0,
from the version, they may know that GEP 2.2.0 will include the support for
the
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Johannes Weberhofer <
jweberho...@weberhofer.at> wrote:
> Dear John!
>
> I'll like to bring this into discussion again:
>
> Is it really necessary, to have so many GEP versions in parallel?
> Shouldn't there be always one version which supports all current Geronim
+1 to release GEP 3.0.0
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Yi Xiao wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As Geronimo 3.0.0 is released, I think it's the time for releasing GEP3.0.0
>
> I've create the branch
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/3.0
> to
> track the code for
+1
It's a good idea to detach the GEP version from Geronimo server. It's
much simpler to keep only one version GEP that supports different version
geronimo servers.
But, I guess there might be some reasons behind for current GEP release
model. More comments from people who knows the backgroun
Dear John!
I'll like to bring this into discussion again:
Is it really necessary, to have so many GEP versions in parallel?
Shouldn't there be always one version which supports all current
Geronimo versions?
Currently, there is eg. GEP_2.1.7 (when I'm right), which supports
G<2.1.7; GEP_2.2
Hi All,
As Geronimo 3.0.0 is released, I think it's the time for releasing GEP3.0.0
I've create the branch
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/3.0
to
track the code for release, the base line is @1344906 in trunk,
I didn't create the branch from the latest r
12 matches
Mail list logo
