On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Shawn Jiang <genspr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.x J2EE 1.4 > 2.0 Java EE 1.5 > 2.1 Java EE 1.5 > 2.2 Java EE 1.5 > 3.0 Java EE 1.6 > > Considering the previous practice, we'd better to move current trunk to > 3.1 and change current beta branch to 3.0. > Sounds good. Any more idea? > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Forrest Xia <forres...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Saw this query, have an idea about the current release roadmap. >> >> 1. Can we move the current incomplete trunk work to version 4 of >> geronimo? >> 2. Rename 3.0-beta branch as the formal 3.0 release? >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Forrest >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Arsen Abdrakhmanov <arsen.abdrakhma...@gmail.com> >> Date: Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM >> Subject: Geronimo release cycle >> To: u...@geronimo.apache.org >> >> >> Dear Geronimo Team, >> >> Actually, I am the fan of geronimo for more than 5 years already. >> For the moment, I am promoting the usage of Geronimo as a platform for >> non-critical applications in our company (banking industry in KZ). >> According to our company's internal policy, only official releases of >> open-source software products can be used for internal applications. >> >> Currently, the release cycle for Geronimo is about an year or even >> longer, so it takes significant amount of time before we could use an >> updated version of software with bug fixes and enhancements. >> >> Taking that into account, can you give any information on your plans to >> accelerate the release cycle for new versions of Geronimo? >> >> I think, it would be very useful for the whole geronimo user community, >> if the releases were published at least semi-anually. >> Hope, it can also increase the popularity of Geronimo among other >> application servers. >> >> Best regards, >> Arsen Abdrakhmanov >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks! >> >> Regards, Forrest >> >> > > > -- > Shawn > -- Thanks! Regards, Forrest
