On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > There will be quite a bit of work involved in splitting the patch, and > some changes are dependent on others. Before starting this we should come > to agreement on which specs upgrades are wanted. This will in most cases > decide which major 3rd party frameworks should be upgraded. We should also > decide if the "latest and greatest" approach to minor 3rd party libraries > (typically commons-libraries) is feasible for Geronimo. There might not be > a single answer to this. > > Yes. I don't think you should start doing any work splitting things apart. > Let's only start that, when we feel it's necessary... Hopefully avoid any > unnecessary work... > > The biggest issue is likely to be -- can 2.2 pass the TCK with your > changes? We'll probably need to level-set our 2.2.1-SNAPSHOT testing -- get > an accurate count of tests currently passing, etc. Prior to incorporating > any changes. Is there any way we can do a TCK smoke test at our end? > There are some potential alternatives to consider -- e.g. build Plugins > that can replace server functionality, rather than integrate all function > into the server functionality. Much like the old OpenJPA plugin that added > JPA 2.0 support, replacing the old JPA function. > This is a good point. We've simply upgraded the plugins, but some should probably be implemented as new plugins instead. > > To simplify the software grant portions of the CLA, it will probably be > easiest to attach your two patch files to a Jira. Select the "donate to the > ASF" button. Then reference these files in the CLA. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6217 > > It will also be useful, if you (and any other participants) submit an ICLA > to secretary@. > We submitted this yesterday, it's been registered. Thanks! Trygve
