Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-21 Thread Kevan Miller
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 pas

Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-21 Thread Paul McMahan
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 f

Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-21 Thread Vamsavardhana Reddy
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 ser

Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-21 Thread Paul McMahan
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 Se

Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-17 Thread Paul McMahan
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 sever

Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-17 Thread Lin Sun
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: Joe, you mentioned TCK and our ability to make 2.0.2 availa

Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-17 Thread Kevan Miller
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-

Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-17 Thread Joe Bohn
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 r

Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-17 Thread Kevan Miller
On 9/17/07, Paul McMahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-17 Thread Kevan Miller
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?

2007-09-17 Thread Vamsavardhana Reddy
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

Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-17 Thread David Jencks
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 lim

Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-17 Thread Paul McMahan
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

Re: What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-17 Thread Joe Bohn
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 prop

What exactly is going into 2.0.2?

2007-09-17 Thread David Jencks
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 encoura