On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think he is talking about having/needing a separate download for > ServiceMix irrespective of whether an incubating jar is in Geronimo or > not.
Basically if one needs servicemix, they get a whole package that has > incubating all over it. Same with derby, if someone needed derby they > won't download Geronimo. They will download Derby. Does not mean that > derby jar should not be in Geronimo. It could be, but needs to be > marked properly (incubating sth or other in the jar name) So we could include the incubating ActiveMQ code inside an actual production Geronimo release - provided the ActiveMQ jars keep (their current name) of incubator-activemq.jar? If so thats great, we can start integrating the Apache ActiveMQ code into Geronimo ASAP - yay! One more question then... ActiveMQ 4.0 is long overdue - I get asked when its gonna be released everyday by someone somewhere :). We were originally hoping to release it last year when most of the development was done but then the incubation process started and we've been treading water a little waiting until we thought we could actually ship some release candidates then the full 4.0 GA. (Which is why there's not been as much developer discussion as last year; we've mostly been in bug fix mode for months waiting until we can release 4.0). Up to now I'd thought we could only do a 4.0 release after leaving the incubator. I remember last time I looked the incubator policy talked in terms that podlings could only do "milestone" releases. Though I just reread the policy document http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html and it doesn't seem to even mention that world any more. So I guess that means we could go ahead and start trying to do the 4.0-RC-* releases and try get the full 4.0 release out - provided the Incubator PMC approves the release and we release the code as "incubator-activemq" with all the necessary disclaimers to avoid any confusion & to ensure users are aware the code is still in the incubator. Is this correct or have I got the wrong end of the stick again? :) -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
