Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer;
  b=imOf/F0swoZD0XYOSOncOuImgZYKkLW1RTqXtd9KSL8w8EVb5P/6rHO5HtSgBUe6nhVctihZwfxa3q7+16koTHOmXwntPBrBaaqr34imlvSS6rCVnmjReFXOGezocbxx2lmCD+7+9PklGwAFwB2wuD3zUsd0g36kA4kWIcMFDjU=
  ;
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622)
In-Reply-To: <74e15baa0510021424q42a6c06dme9623248368e65cd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2f8560424082c7b0e71d6c7ebe5ca767@yahoo.com>
 <81DF82ED-7383-4C47-8B10-33757BC69473@apache.org>
 <74e15baa0510020800o78740924xec130de9cccaf3c9@mail.gmail.com>
 <97d743854acc4e936cec7ee1a75a2a9a@yahoo.com>
 <74e15baa0510021424q42a6c06dme9623248368e65cd@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <5dc7960c34a28f416cc8a92c759d8a98@yahoo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] -- M5 release -- (Was Re: 1.0-M5 candidate build)
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:42:03 -0700
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org


On Oct 2, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> Sorry, I thought you had figured out the installer issue.  We should
> certainly be able to build it from the same files as we distribute
> normally.  Where does it stand now?  I can tweak it if you've run out
> of energy for it.
>
> The installer also has a scripted/automated install process, which
> should address unpacking/running to get something to test.
>
I think there are a couple of issues:
1. It is a really lot of work to run the tck, and I'm not up for doing 
it again for a while.  I would prefer to find a way to claim that the 
geronimo installer is covered by the tests run on the zip distro.  I 
would be quite happy claiming this if the installer was built by 
unpacking the zip into the installer directory rather than copying 
all/most of the files.  It's probably fine if we build the installer 
using the same assembly directory, but I'd like some other opinions on 
this.

2. Related to the above, we should build the installer on the same 
assembly module copy as the zip.  That's one of David Blevin's 
machines, so he should do it.


> Also, if we can distribute our own Axis, I'm sure we can distribute
> our own IzPack.  But really, I don't think there's a compelling need
> to, since no one needs IzPack to install or run the product.  (Also,
> you say you couldn't get a copy for yourself, but that's only because
> the download was troublesome for you, right?  If I had a nickel for
> every time ibiblio crapped out... :)

Ibiblio sometimes has problems, but it is a well known well advertised 
site with automated downloads and usually works fine.  Stuff available 
from it has at least theoretically been officially released by its 
authors.  The current version of izpack is on a secret site that you 
need a password for and that in my experience has not yet worked.  It 
has not been officially released and I have no idea how it was built.  
I'm not sure how much of an issue I have with this for M5 but I really 
don't want to continue this state of affairs through the next release.  
I think izpack has to be run from maven.

Anyone else have an opinion?

thanks
david jencks
>
> Aaron
>
> On 10/2/05, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2005, at 8:00 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>>> Cool.  Can you publish a candidate installer, too?
>>
>> well, I'm not sure.  I see two potential problems, aside from being 
>> too
>> tired right now to put it together :-)
>>
>> 1. We aren't set up to certify it, how would we make it clear that the
>> installer version wasn't certified?  Or is it certified???  I'd prefer
>> to find a way to certify the installer based version.  I think it 
>> would
>> be easy to build the installer using maven, but I'm not sure about
>> unpacking/running it to get something to test.  If we found a way to
>> make the installer include the certified zip distribution and just
>> unpack it and change the config.* files I don't think this would be an
>> issue.  Maybe it's ok to claim the installer is certified if it is
>> built from the same assembly as the zip.  I'm just not sure.
>>
>> 2. It's built with unreleased software that I at least couldn't get 
>> for
>> myself. I suppose that we could include a copy of the installer kit
>> version we use, as we have included a copy of axis.
>>
>> Anyway I hope we can figure out a way to answer these questions so we
>> can put out a installer version.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>     Aaron
>>>
>>> On 10/2/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geirm@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> (just making it clear for others)
>>>>
>>>> +1 from me
>>>>
>>>> Thanks everyone for the incredible work to make this happen.
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 2, 2005, at 8:15 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The 1.0-M5  branch passed all the tck tests, so David Blevins and I
>>>>> have tagged geronimo and openejb and built a candidate 1.0-M5 zip.
>>>>> We are running the tck on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> The zip is available for testing at
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/geronimo-1.0-M5.zip
>>>>>
>>>>> We'd like to call for a vote on a release based on this tag
>>>>> conditional on the tck passing (again).  I think the process would
>>>>> be that after the vote we would work on publishing the jars, this
>>>>> zip distribution, and a source distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
>>>> geirm@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>