Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
After thinking about this some more I upgraded the MyFaces version to 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT in server/trunk but not in the 2.0 branch. If trunk is passing all JSF tests in time for 2.0.2 then I will upgrade there as well. Best wishes, Paul On Sep 17, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Paul McMahan wrote: On Sep 17, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Joe Bohn wrote: Paul McMahan wrote: Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 available by 9/21. I have a question for the team about that. I would like to bump Geronimo's version of MyFaces from 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 since that new release contains several bug fixes, some of them actually found and reported by Geronimo users. But doing that could affect Geronimo's TCK results and affect the 9/21 delivery date. I would imagine that the same is true for other dependencies.Are we OK with picking up maintenance releases of Geronimo dependencies in 2.0.2 even if we think TCK issues could slow us down? Or should we keep 2.0.2 focused on localized changes and only bump the dependency versions in Geronimo 2.1 so we have more time to deal any resulting TCK issues? I think it makes sense to move to the latest version of the Geronimo dependencies. However, it probably makes sense to validate areas in the TCK that may be impacted prior to the change or soon there-after in case there are issues that need to be resolve which might impact our ability to deliver in a timely manner. OK thanks Joe (and Kevan). Just wanted to make sure that overall as a team we agree that it's OK to introduce changes that could affect the proposed 9/21 date due to TCK issues. We can always back those changes out if we decide to, of course. Best wishes, Paul
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
Will we have a released version of MyFaces 1.2.1? I believe we do not want to include any SNAPSHOT versions as dependencies in our releases. Vamsi On 9/21/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After thinking about this some more I upgraded the MyFaces version to 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT in server/trunk but not in the 2.0 branch. If trunk is passing all JSF tests in time for 2.0.2 then I will upgrade there as well. Best wishes, Paul On Sep 17, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Paul McMahan wrote: On Sep 17, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Joe Bohn wrote: Paul McMahan wrote: Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 available by 9/21. I have a question for the team about that. I would like to bump Geronimo's version of MyFaces from 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 since that new release contains several bug fixes, some of them actually found and reported by Geronimo users. But doing that could affect Geronimo's TCK results and affect the 9/21 delivery date. I would imagine that the same is true for other dependencies.Are we OK with picking up maintenance releases of Geronimo dependencies in 2.0.2 even if we think TCK issues could slow us down? Or should we keep 2.0.2 focused on localized changes and only bump the dependency versions in Geronimo 2.1 so we have more time to deal any resulting TCK issues? I think it makes sense to move to the latest version of the Geronimo dependencies. However, it probably makes sense to validate areas in the TCK that may be impacted prior to the change or soon there-after in case there are issues that need to be resolve which might impact our ability to deliver in a timely manner. OK thanks Joe (and Kevan). Just wanted to make sure that overall as a team we agree that it's OK to introduce changes that could affect the proposed 9/21 date due to TCK issues. We can always back those changes out if we decide to, of course. Best wishes, Paul
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote: Will we have a released version of MyFaces 1.2.1? I believe we do not want to include any SNAPSHOT versions as dependencies in our releases. We can request a release when it is passing TCK. Getting it into a Geronimo build is a first step towards running TCK on it and fixing any problems. We work very closely with the MyFaces team on this process, similar to OpenEJB, Axis, CXF, etc. Best wishes, Paul
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Paul McMahan wrote: On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote: Will we have a released version of MyFaces 1.2.1? I believe we do not want to include any SNAPSHOT versions as dependencies in our releases. We can request a release when it is passing TCK. Getting it into a Geronimo build is a first step towards running TCK on it and fixing any problems. We work very closely with the MyFaces team on this process, similar to OpenEJB, Axis, CXF, etc. Sounds reasonable. You'll probably have an easier time running on branches/2.0, however. Suggest you make a local modification to the myfaces dependency (without committing) and run some tests... --kevan
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
I agree 2.0.2 should be primarily bug fixes but I don't think it must be limited to only bug fixes. If there are small changes that address customer concerns on security (such as GERONIMO-2925) or usability then I think those can be considered for inclusion. Key is to keep the date Kevan proposed (Friday, 9/21) and resolve any TCK issues. Joe David Jencks wrote: I'm starting to wonder what the goal for 2.0.2 is. I kinda thought that a x.y.z where z 0 was a bugfix-only release of x.y.z-1 but I think some new features are going into 2.0.2... IIUC Vamsi is applying an enhancement to allow specifying work directory per-web-app and donald is encouraging me to apply my proposal to GERONIMO-2925 to the branch. Though small these are definitely new features. Personally I would prefer to minimize such feature creep and have more focus on getting 2.1 out in a less than geological time frame, in particular before apachecon atlanta. What do others think? thanks david jencks
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
I agree that 2.0.2 should be limited to bug fixes but I think new features are OK as long as they are very low risk and don't cause any backwards compatibility problems. I think when users pick up a x.y.z +1 release they want and expect minimal risk and disruption. Right now GERONIMO-2925 is classified in JIRA as Type: Bug, Priority: Critical. So if we're OK with that classification then sound like it's a good candidate for 2.0.2. Otherwise let's update the JIRA. As for the directory per web-app feature, the JIRA (GERONIMO-2964) contains a lot of discussion about schema changes and version compatibility, which tends to raise an eyebrow about its inclusion in 2.0.2. But the schema changes may be minor and backwards compatible (?), and the reported problems with plugin compatibility might be a false alarm because the plugins in 2.0.1 may not have been working correctly in the first place? I am still a little confused about that. Once the final solution for that item has been committed to trunk I think it would be a good idea to summarize how it might affect 2.0.1 users (especially w.r.t. backwards compatibility) so that the community and release manager can help weigh in on whether or not it should be merged to the 2.0 branch. Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 available by 9/21. I have a question for the team about that. I would like to bump Geronimo's version of MyFaces from 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 since that new release contains several bug fixes, some of them actually found and reported by Geronimo users. But doing that could affect Geronimo's TCK results and affect the 9/21 delivery date. I would imagine that the same is true for other dependencies.Are we OK with picking up maintenance releases of Geronimo dependencies in 2.0.2 even if we think TCK issues could slow us down? Or should we keep 2.0.2 focused on localized changes and only bump the dependency versions in Geronimo 2.1 so we have more time to deal any resulting TCK issues? Best wishes, Paul On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Joe Bohn wrote: I agree 2.0.2 should be primarily bug fixes but I don't think it must be limited to only bug fixes. If there are small changes that address customer concerns on security (such as GERONIMO-2925) or usability then I think those can be considered for inclusion. Key is to keep the date Kevan proposed (Friday, 9/21) and resolve any TCK issues. Joe David Jencks wrote: I'm starting to wonder what the goal for 2.0.2 is. I kinda thought that a x.y.z where z 0 was a bugfix-only release of x.y.z-1 but I think some new features are going into 2.0.2... IIUC Vamsi is applying an enhancement to allow specifying work directory per-web-app and donald is encouraging me to apply my proposal to GERONIMO-2925 to the branch. Though small these are definitely new features. Personally I would prefer to minimize such feature creep and have more focus on getting 2.1 out in a less than geological time frame, in particular before apachecon atlanta. What do others think? thanks david jencks
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
Speaking of versions I think we should go to openjpa 1.0.0 the trunk build has been broken for a bit since the -r* snapshot openejb was using seems to have disappeared. I'm working on this... david jencks On Sep 17, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Paul McMahan wrote: I agree that 2.0.2 should be limited to bug fixes but I think new features are OK as long as they are very low risk and don't cause any backwards compatibility problems. I think when users pick up a x.y.z+1 release they want and expect minimal risk and disruption. Right now GERONIMO-2925 is classified in JIRA as Type: Bug, Priority: Critical. So if we're OK with that classification then sound like it's a good candidate for 2.0.2. Otherwise let's update the JIRA. As for the directory per web-app feature, the JIRA (GERONIMO-2964) contains a lot of discussion about schema changes and version compatibility, which tends to raise an eyebrow about its inclusion in 2.0.2. But the schema changes may be minor and backwards compatible(?), and the reported problems with plugin compatibility might be a false alarm because the plugins in 2.0.1 may not have been working correctly in the first place? I am still a little confused about that. Once the final solution for that item has been committed to trunk I think it would be a good idea to summarize how it might affect 2.0.1 users (especially w.r.t. backwards compatibility) so that the community and release manager can help weigh in on whether or not it should be merged to the 2.0 branch. Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 available by 9/21. I have a question for the team about that. I would like to bump Geronimo's version of MyFaces from 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 since that new release contains several bug fixes, some of them actually found and reported by Geronimo users. But doing that could affect Geronimo's TCK results and affect the 9/21 delivery date. I would imagine that the same is true for other dependencies.Are we OK with picking up maintenance releases of Geronimo dependencies in 2.0.2 even if we think TCK issues could slow us down? Or should we keep 2.0.2 focused on localized changes and only bump the dependency versions in Geronimo 2.1 so we have more time to deal any resulting TCK issues? Best wishes, Paul On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Joe Bohn wrote: I agree 2.0.2 should be primarily bug fixes but I don't think it must be limited to only bug fixes. If there are small changes that address customer concerns on security (such as GERONIMO-2925) or usability then I think those can be considered for inclusion. Key is to keep the date Kevan proposed (Friday, 9/21) and resolve any TCK issues. Joe David Jencks wrote: I'm starting to wonder what the goal for 2.0.2 is. I kinda thought that a x.y.z where z 0 was a bugfix-only release of x.y.z-1 but I think some new features are going into 2.0.2... IIUC Vamsi is applying an enhancement to allow specifying work directory per-web-app and donald is encouraging me to apply my proposal to GERONIMO-2925 to the branch. Though small these are definitely new features. Personally I would prefer to minimize such feature creep and have more focus on getting 2.1 out in a less than geological time frame, in particular before apachecon atlanta. What do others think? thanks david jencks
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
On 9/17/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that 2.0.2 should be limited to bug fixes but I think new features are OK as long as they are very low risk and don't cause any backwards compatibility problems. I think when users pick up a x.y.z +1 release they want and expect minimal risk and disruption. Right now GERONIMO-2925 is classified in JIRA as Type: Bug, Priority: Critical. So if we're OK with that classification then sound like it's a good candidate for 2.0.2. Otherwise let's update the JIRA. As for the directory per web-app feature, the JIRA (GERONIMO-2964) contains a lot of discussion about schema changes and version compatibility, which tends to raise an eyebrow about its inclusion in 2.0.2. But the schema changes may be minor and backwards compatible (?), and the reported problems with plugin compatibility might be a false alarm because the plugins in 2.0.1 may not have been working correctly in the first place? I am still a little confused about that. Once the final solution for that item has been committed to trunk I think it would be a good idea to summarize how it might affect 2.0.1 users (especially w.r.t. backwards compatibility) so that the community and release manager can help weigh in on whether or not it should be merged to the 2.0 branch. I don't think the schema changes will come in the way of backward compatibility of plugins. I have proposed a patch for branches\2.0 without changing constructors or methods so that it won't come in the way of compatibility. But in the process I noticed that jsp-examples and servlet-examples cars from 2.0.1 won't run on G 2.0.1 due to a default-subject in the plans and won't install on 2.0.2-SNAPSHOT due to a change to Holder class. There may be other plugins that may unearth other changes that have already broken compatibility. If someone is going to take up finding and fixing all those compatibility breaking changes, it may be worth considering the no constructor change patch for trunk too. Also, it may be a good idea to add some tests for the compatibility we want to preserve across versions!! Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 available by 9/21. I have a question for the team about that. I would like to bump Geronimo's version of MyFaces from 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 since that new release contains several bug fixes, some of them actually found and reported by Geronimo users. But doing that could affect Geronimo's TCK results and affect the 9/21 delivery date. I would imagine that the same is true for other dependencies.Are we OK with picking up maintenance releases of Geronimo dependencies in 2.0.2 even if we think TCK issues could slow us down? Or should we keep 2.0.2 focused on localized changes and only bump the dependency versions in Geronimo 2.1 so we have more time to deal any resulting TCK issues? Best wishes, Paul On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Joe Bohn wrote: I agree 2.0.2 should be primarily bug fixes but I don't think it must be limited to only bug fixes. If there are small changes that address customer concerns on security (such as GERONIMO-2925) or usability then I think those can be considered for inclusion. Key is to keep the date Kevan proposed (Friday, 9/21) and resolve any TCK issues. Joe David Jencks wrote: I'm starting to wonder what the goal for 2.0.2 is. I kinda thought that a x.y.z where z 0 was a bugfix-only release of x.y.z-1 but I think some new features are going into 2.0.2... IIUC Vamsi is applying an enhancement to allow specifying work directory per-web-app and donald is encouraging me to apply my proposal to GERONIMO-2925 to the branch. Though small these are definitely new features. Personally I would prefer to minimize such feature creep and have more focus on getting 2.1 out in a less than geological time frame, in particular before apachecon atlanta. What do others think? thanks david jencks
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
I'm moving this to the '[DISCUSS] G 2.0.2 Release Plan' mail thread. --kevan
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
On 9/17/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 available by 9/21. I have a question for the team about that. I would like to bump Geronimo's version of MyFaces from 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 since that new release contains several bug fixes, some of them actually found and reported by Geronimo users. But doing that could affect Geronimo's TCK results and affect the 9/21 delivery date. I would imagine that the same is true for other dependencies.Are we OK with picking up maintenance releases of Geronimo dependencies in 2.0.2 even if we think TCK issues could slow us down? Or should we keep 2.0.2 focused on localized changes and only bump the dependency versions in Geronimo 2.1 so we have more time to deal any resulting TCK issues? In general, I think it's fine to bump dependencies to a later version. Especially, if there are bug fixes we know about. We're also motivated to pick up released versions of projects which we're currently carrying -r* builds in our svn repository... --kevan
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
Paul McMahan wrote: Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 available by 9/21. I have a question for the team about that. I would like to bump Geronimo's version of MyFaces from 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 since that new release contains several bug fixes, some of them actually found and reported by Geronimo users. But doing that could affect Geronimo's TCK results and affect the 9/21 delivery date. I would imagine that the same is true for other dependencies.Are we OK with picking up maintenance releases of Geronimo dependencies in 2.0.2 even if we think TCK issues could slow us down? Or should we keep 2.0.2 focused on localized changes and only bump the dependency versions in Geronimo 2.1 so we have more time to deal any resulting TCK issues? I think it makes sense to move to the latest version of the Geronimo dependencies. However, it probably makes sense to validate areas in the TCK that may be impacted prior to the change or soon there-after in case there are issues that need to be resolve which might impact our ability to deliver in a timely manner. Joe
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
On 9/17/07, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking of versions I think we should go to openjpa 1.0.0 the trunk build has been broken for a bit since the -r* snapshot openejb was using seems to have disappeared. Hmm. A while back, I moved branches/2.0 and trunk to OpenJPA 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT and deleted the private builds from our repo (or at least thought i did). I moved the version to 1.0.0 earlier today. I confess that I didn't build trunk. But I did build branches/2.0 without a problem. I'm reinstalling the OS on my dev machine. So, I can't really check on this, ATM. --kevan
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
FYI - for 2.0.2, We are looking at moving to newer versions of tranql artifacts which contains a fix for G2188. Hopefully this won't impact tck. Thanks, Lin Kevan Miller wrote: On 9/17/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 available by 9/21. I have a question for the team about that. I would like to bump Geronimo's version of MyFaces from 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 since that new release contains several bug fixes, some of them actually found and reported by Geronimo users. But doing that could affect Geronimo's TCK results and affect the 9/21 delivery date. I would imagine that the same is true for other dependencies.Are we OK with picking up maintenance releases of Geronimo dependencies in 2.0.2 even if we think TCK issues could slow us down? Or should we keep 2.0.2 focused on localized changes and only bump the dependency versions in Geronimo 2.1 so we have more time to deal any resulting TCK issues? In general, I think it's fine to bump dependencies to a later version. Especially, if there are bug fixes we know about. We're also motivated to pick up released versions of projects which we're currently carrying -r* builds in our svn repository... --kevan
Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?
On Sep 17, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Joe Bohn wrote: Paul McMahan wrote: Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 available by 9/21. I have a question for the team about that. I would like to bump Geronimo's version of MyFaces from 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 since that new release contains several bug fixes, some of them actually found and reported by Geronimo users. But doing that could affect Geronimo's TCK results and affect the 9/21 delivery date. I would imagine that the same is true for other dependencies.Are we OK with picking up maintenance releases of Geronimo dependencies in 2.0.2 even if we think TCK issues could slow us down? Or should we keep 2.0.2 focused on localized changes and only bump the dependency versions in Geronimo 2.1 so we have more time to deal any resulting TCK issues? I think it makes sense to move to the latest version of the Geronimo dependencies. However, it probably makes sense to validate areas in the TCK that may be impacted prior to the change or soon there-after in case there are issues that need to be resolve which might impact our ability to deliver in a timely manner. OK thanks Joe (and Kevan). Just wanted to make sure that overall as a team we agree that it's OK to introduce changes that could affect the proposed 9/21 date due to TCK issues. We can always back those changes out if we decide to, of course. Best wishes, Paul
