I agree that 2.0.2 should be limited to bug fixes but I think new
features are OK as long as they are very low risk and don't cause any
backwards compatibility problems. I think when users pick up a x.y.z
+1 release they want and expect minimal risk and disruption. Right
now GERONIMO-2925 is classified in JIRA as Type: Bug, Priority:
Critical. So if we're OK with that classification then sound like
it's a good candidate for 2.0.2. Otherwise let's update the JIRA.
As for the directory per web-app feature, the JIRA (GERONIMO-2964)
contains a lot of discussion about schema changes and version
compatibility, which tends to raise an eyebrow about its inclusion in
2.0.2. But the schema changes may be minor and backwards compatible
(?), and the reported problems with plugin compatibility might be a
false alarm because the plugins in 2.0.1 may not have been working
correctly in the first place? I am still a little confused about
that. Once the final solution for that item has been committed to
trunk I think it would be a good idea to summarize how it might
affect 2.0.1 users (especially w.r.t. backwards compatibility) so
that the community and release manager can help weigh in on whether
or not it should be merged to the 2.0 branch.
Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 available by
9/21. I have a question for the team about that. I would like to
bump Geronimo's version of MyFaces from 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 since that new
release contains several bug fixes, some of them actually found and
reported by Geronimo users. But doing that could affect Geronimo's
TCK results and affect the 9/21 delivery date. I would imagine that
the same is true for other dependencies. Are we OK with picking up
maintenance releases of Geronimo dependencies in 2.0.2 even if we
think TCK issues could slow us down? Or should we keep 2.0.2
focused on "localized" changes and only bump the dependency versions
in Geronimo 2.1 so we have more time to deal any resulting TCK issues?
Best wishes,
Paul
On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
I agree 2.0.2 should be primarily bug fixes but I don't think it
must be limited to only bug fixes. If there are small changes that
address customer concerns on security (such as GERONIMO-2925) or
usability then I think those can be considered for inclusion. Key
is to keep the date Kevan proposed (Friday, 9/21) and resolve any
TCK issues.
Joe
David Jencks wrote:
I'm starting to wonder what the goal for 2.0.2 is. I kinda
thought that a x.y.z where z > 0 was a bugfix-only release of
x.y.z-1 but I think some new features are going into 2.0.2...
IIUC Vamsi is applying an enhancement to allow specifying work
directory per-web-app and donald is encouraging me to apply my
proposal to GERONIMO-2925 to the branch. Though small these are
definitely new features.
Personally I would prefer to minimize such feature creep and have
more focus on getting 2.1 out in a less than geological time
frame, in particular before apachecon atlanta.
What do others think?
thanks
david jencks
