Just so I understand... What is the direction we're taking? Just for the terminology sake, I'll call these versions
- g-ahc-v1: Geronimo AHC based on Mina 1.1 (the one that Rick and I were working on) - g-ahc-v2: Geronimo AHC based on Mina trunk - mina-ahc: Mina AHC that was refactored into asyncweb Are we migrating changes from g-ahc-v1 to g-ahc-v2 first and will try to migrate them again from g-ahc-v2 to mina-ahc? Thanks, Sangjin On Jan 30, 2008 6:36 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 30, 2008 1:49 PM, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Being that its in the sandbox...anything goes. ;-) > > > > However...with that said...lets see what pans out here at Mina. I would > > certainly consider the delta now before we get 3 diverse versions ;-) > > > > Yes the preferred version is Mina 2.x. > > > > > Indeed! We might want to first make sure the two Geronimo forks are merged > and using MINA 2.0. Meaning all the features and fixes in the one based > on > MINA 1.1.x are put into the one based on MINA 2.0-M1. > > That might bring the consolidated Geronimo fork closer to the MINA version > in Asyncweb trunk. Then we can focus on how to merge these two together? > > Alex >
