+0 #2
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
+1 #2
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
So what alan is point out is I just suggested we add one more
feature. I agree that this is another feature, so what do we want to
do? I think we have three choices:
1) My idea below, isolate the broken porlets to an experimental
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
Yeah, all right, but what's the difference between a late-breaking fix
and a late-breaking feature of comparable size? Anything
late-breaking is risky, but we now have the policy that 4 people will
review it, plus we have a week to review the build before it becomes
final, so what's the big
I think we should stay focused on the blocker JIRAs for now as our whittle point as discussed
earlier in this thread. Other fixes that address functional issues are fine as well. Once those
are complete other things could be considered. Right now the significant blocking factor is
Codehaus
Matt Hogstrom 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
I appreciate your concerns but as you noted there are a number of other bug fixes and blockers that
*you* moved into the 1.1 stream that need to be addressed. Null pointer exceptions, etc. If we
were in better shape on the usability front I would agree with you. There are so many of those I
OK. I'm well aware that I've assigned a large number of 1.1 issues to
myself. Is there someone else I should assign them to? And do you
have a list of the other issues that you feel need to be addressed
for the 1.1 release?
Thanks,
Aaron
On 5/23/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
Here is what I would like to define as our closing set for 1.1
* Restoration of Codehaus repos to get OEJB and TranQL up and running.
* Complete testing of current performance fixes and commit them.
* Close out SNAPSHOTs to final releases (depends partially on the above)
* Complete the
How about we create an experimental section of the console menu,
that only displays if you click the show experimental link (I'd
guess it can all be done with java script on the browser side). I
remember for 1.0 we removed a lot of portlets, but I think it would
be ok to include most of
/me mumbles something about roses...
Regards,
Alan
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
How about we create an experimental section of the console menu,
that only displays if you click the show experimental link (I'd
guess it can all be done with java script on the browser side). I
remember for 1.0 we
So what alan is point out is I just suggested we add one more
feature. I agree that this is another feature, so what do we want to
do? I think we have three choices:
1) My idea below, isolate the broken porlets to an experimental
section
2) Just remove the broken portlets
3) Fix the
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
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
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
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
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:
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
