geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: [Vote] 1.1-rc1 Now Available
Date Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:52:23 GMT
John,

I'm not aware of what does or does not go into the NOTICES file.  If we need the notices does
anyone 
have a list of them lying around on their harddisk ?

Otherwise, any volunteers to pull them together?

Hernan, could you start a Wiki page for people to post their findings to?

Cheers,

Matt

John Sisson wrote:
> I have started some due diligence checking on the release candidate and 
> have a few questions.
> 
> AFAIK, the NOTICE.txt file should contain required third-party 
> notices/attributions, yet it seems pretty empty to me.
> 
> For example, I was expecting to see the text from 
> http://www.bouncycastle.org/licence.html in there since we have a copy 
> of some of their code (no crypto though) in geronimo's util module.  The 
> page on their website indicates that a notice may be required.
> 
> What about other 3rd party binaries that we include in the 
> distribution?  For example, I had a quick look at the repository 
> directory in the assemblies and there are libraries we ship where their 
> project website requires attributions etc to be included with binary 
> distributions (e.g. ASM , http://asm.objectweb.org/license.html ).
> 
> Please speak up if I am misinterpreting the use of the NOTICE.txt file.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
> 
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> I apologize for resending this to the lists.  I inadvertantly did not 
>> put [vote] in the subject line so it may not have been apparent.  The 
>> remainder of this e-mail is the same content that was distributed last 
>> night.
>>
>> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>> Over the past few days the outstanding issues that were raised about 
>>> the first candidate have been addressed.
>>>
>>> They were that we were missing the LICENSE.txt as well as Notices 
>>> from the distribution.  I added them.  Guillaume also pointed out 
>>> that he noted that there should be a Third Party Notices.  This was 
>>> not included in the original 1.0 or previous distributions so I did 
>>> not follow it up.  Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Also, the 1.0 release notes were removed and updated the thread 
>>> started by Hernan.  The Wiki has been updated and the wiki was the 
>>> source used to create the RELEASE-NOTES-1.1.txt file you will find in 
>>> the build.
>>>
>>> To avoid issues with the version number and the plugins I used rc1 
>>> which Aaron had added in the plugins for supported versions so I 
>>> trust that works here.
>>>
>>> JSisson addressed the problem with not being able to run Geronimo 
>>> under CygWin and Kevan worked with Aaron to address a new deployment 
>>> problem that left partially deployed artifacts in the repository.
>>>
>>> I have taken this build and run some performance tests on it and we 
>>> are significantly better in 1.1 than we were in 1.0.  We have a lot 
>>> of improvement left for CMP EJBs.  It appears that the performance 
>>> improvements in the EJB tier has changed a race condition when 
>>> running under DB2.  I'm afraid that the only way to address the 
>>> problem is to add a new feature to TranQL and OEJB that allow for the 
>>> specification of Isolation Levels for individual beans.  This is a 
>>> relatively simple change but the build as it stands is specification 
>>> compliant.  I would prefer to let this release go forward since CMP 
>>> 2.1 EJBs are not nearly as common as the other J2EE components.  I 
>>> would like to address this in 1.1.1 however I don't think we've 
>>> locked down whether that would be allowed or not.  The change would 
>>> affect TranQL and OpenEJB so they are really included components so 
>>> I'd be interested in people's feedback.
>>>
>>> So please accept a named RC1.  Your voting and feedback are for:
>>>
>>> Geronimo 1.1
>>> DayTrader 1.1
>>> Specs 1.1
>>>
>>> The vote will stand for 72 hours.  Issues raised will be discussed 
>>> and if we conclude that there is a bug that must be addressed then we 
>>> will mitigate the problem and respin a new rc for a 72 hour vote.
>>>
>>> If this is accepted all three of the above components will be 
>>> released simultaneously.
>>>
>>> Here are the builds for your review and comment:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-rc1.tar.gz 
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-rc1.zip
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.1-rc1.tar.gz 
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-romcat-j2ee-1.1-rc1.zip
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz

>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-rc1.zip 
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz

>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-rc1.zip 
>>>
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/daytrader-ear-1.1-rc1.zip
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your comments and feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message