Please do. Thanks! 2010/9/15 Peter Firmstone <[email protected]>
> Jonathan Costers wrote: > >> Make sure we have the original River distribution working OK (i.e. get all >> test passing): +1 >> >> > I've got skunk/pepe passing alright, I've removed the problematic > experimental code. Would you like me to remove the experimental classes > from trunk? > > Actually there is one test in jtreg we need to look into, but I figure we > can wait for the qa tests to be right first. > > Worry about issues that are not even relevant if we don't have a working >> distributrion: -1 >> >> >> 2010/9/15 Sim IJskes - QCG <[email protected]> >> >> >> >>> On 09/15/2010 01:56 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I don't want to have to answer user queries like: "I've set up a new >>>> djinn group for my new Apache River nodes, but my existing Jini nodes >>>> can't discover the new group. The new nodes are using my existing >>>> programs and they work among themselves, but the new Registrars aren't >>>> working with my older nodes. The new nodes services work with my old >>>> clients only if they register with existing Registrars. Reggie seems >>>> broken in Apache River 2.2.0?" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Why don't we just worry about creating a working River, and let the >>> compatibility issues be solved by the market? Most deployments are done >>> within the boundaries of a single organization. They should have done >>> this >>> incompatible upgrade multiple times, it not something that is unique to a >>> river upgrade. Most bigger organizations will have their own >>> software-library, and establish their own software baselines by cloning >>> our >>> vcs. >>> >>> Keep compatible: -1 >>> >>> Gr. Sim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
