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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
+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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
