On Dec 7, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Dec 7, 2006, at 2:47 PM, David Blevins wrote:
It looks like the time for release is at hand as Geronimo is on
the cusp of 1.2 beta.
From an Incubator status we cleared up what was posted by Kevan
and me. Anyone want to double check that we are good to go in
that area?
From a technical perspective when are we good to ship? Could we
cut today, tomorrow, next week? Any outstanding technical items
we'd need to get done for Geronimo's 1.2 beta?
Hi David,
I started looking at branches/v2_2/openejb2 last night.
There were a few files missing license headers.
Ok. We update the ones that you posted, but if there were any that
got left behind, feel free to post another list or just update the
last remaining files.
All of the NOTICE files did not meet current Apache requirements,
and there was no DISCLAIMER file. I can commit these changes soon
to branches/2_2 and trunk/openejb2, soon.
Great. Thanks.
There's a bit of work needed to identify any 3rd party license/
notice information that needs to be included in the OpenEJB license/
notice files.
We're good here as you only need/should have 3rd part license files
for libraries you redistribute -- not what you depend on. I double
checked with Henri our mentor to make sure.
Release notes/readme files need to be created. These should mention
that openejb is in incubator.
Created release notes:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openejb/branches/v2_2/
openejb2/RELEASE-NOTES-2.2.txt
We don't need a readme file though as there is nothing to "try" or
any zips/tars to put it in. Same goes for the release notes
technically, but I know Geronimo will want them so I went ahead and
created those.
I have not run RAT against a binary distribution. So, there may be
some additional issues...
Maybe you can just run it against some of the files in your maven2
repo or the OpenEJB section of a Geronimo 1.2 repo.
To make sure we're all thinking alike, here are the releases that I
see coming up in the very-near future:
2.2-m1 (corresponds to Geronimo 1.2 beta)
2.3-m1 (corresponds to Geronimo 2.0 M1)
We don't/can't certify so there is no need to put the "milestone" or
beta prefix on the releases. If we're lucky we could do:
2.2 (Geronimo 1.2 beta1)
2.3 (Geronimo 1.2 final and Geronimo 2.0 M1) <-- this is the part
where we could be lucky
There is no code difference between 2.2 and 2.3, the only difference
is the version of the geronimo dependencies listed in the poms which
Geronimo should be able to exclude when it references OpenEJB in
configs/assembly. I think that kind of hints at some of the items
you were talking about.
Thoughts from anyone?
-David
