+1 on 3 weeks On 6/27/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We should probably set a date on this so we're motivated to resolve issues and start getting our release gears greased and moving. What would be your preference? - 1 week - 2 weeks - 3 weeks - 1 month My preference would be (in this order): - 3 weeks (including voting and publishing) - 2 weeks (if we're not too disciplined and expect to lag a week) I'd like to see us get our hot deploy hooked up, some ejb validation code in there, and our sun schema issue cleared up. What are your preferences? (as usual floor is open to everyone, not just committers) -David On Jun 1, 2007, at 2:49 PM, David Blevins wrote: > I think we're ready to pull the trigger on 3.0 > > Thinks look pretty great: http://cwiki.apache.org/OPENEJB/ejb-3- > roadmap.html > > No service-ref support in OpenEJB standalone yet, I don't think > that's enough to hold us up though. Compliance-wise, we couldn't > look much better ;) > > What do people think? > > I can think of the interceptor issues that Prasad has raised, but > fixes for those could easily go into a 3.0.1, which based on passed > experience will likely have to rush out soon after people start > complaining about 3.0.0 :) > > -David > > On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Manu George wrote: > >> +1 for this idea as well >> >> On 3/21/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On 3/21/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mar 20, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi Dain... >>> > > >>> > > I like your idea, but IMHO I think we have to wait until we make >>> > > sure that >>> > > the minimum set of EJB3.0 features are implemented, by examining >>> > > the list >>> > > provided by DBlevins. Then we can make the OEJB3.0 release >>> out to >>> > > the light. >>> > >>> > We should probably go through that list and decide what the must >>> > haves are and what we can do without. >>> > >>> > For example, IMHO we can do without the Validation, iTests, and >>> > Examples sections. We could definitely work on the validation >>> part >>> > while people are giving us some initial feedback on the release >>> > content overall. I suspect user feedback might also how we >>> > prioritize completing the itests. >>> > >>> > Might be some other ones that aren't critical too. >>> > >>> > -David >>> >>> >>> +1 for this idea >>> >>> > On 3/21/07, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> I think we should just ship what we have now as "3.0". We >>> have tons >>> > >> of new exciting stuff and people can start working with it. >>> As they >>> > >> find issues we can release updates. >>> > >> >>> > >> I've been mainly working on the 2.x stuff and it is pretty >>> close to >>> > >> be fully complete, but I don't think it is worth waiting >>> around for >>> > >> some infrequently used features to be finished. >>> > >> >>> > >> -dain >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> On Mar 16, 2007, at 4:15 PM, David Blevins wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> > I've been wondering when we should start kicking some >>> releases from >>> > >> > the 3x branch out the door. I can't seem to come up with >>> a good >>> > >> > answer even in my own mind about when this should be. >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Seems we're doing really great as far as functionality and >>> > >> > implementing EJB3 is concerned. We still have a ways to >>> go, but >>> > >> > not too far actually. >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Should we start shipping releases? If so what do we call >>> them and >>> > >> > when do we start? If not what do we need to get done? >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Thoughts? (floor's open to all, committer or not) >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > -David >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Thanks >>> > > - Mohammad Nour >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks >>> - Mohammad Nour >>> >> > >
-- Thanks - Mohammad Nour
