geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Tag 1.1 issue?
Date Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:47:12 GMT
I agree, but if we are not using snapshots, i.e. a true release of
openejb, then this should be a moot point...the m:co could be changed to
point at the openejb tag rather than the branch.  If we aren't going to
run after this, then I may go along with the best thing to do is to
remove the m:co as it will give very bad results (as I and others have
found).  Thoughts?

Jeff

Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> It would be nice to have closure on this.  Perhaps, we'll have it when
> OpenEJB makes it to Apache. However, we've had issues with other Apache
> projects not releasing on time...Axis is the example that comes to mind.
> 
> I think it would be nice to have everything bundled up but in many
> respects its outside our control.
> 
> Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 6, 2006, at 11:30 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I tried to build the v1.1 of Geronimo tag and I noticed that when I
>>>>> went
>>>>> to do a m:co of openejb, it is giving me the openejb branch instead of
>>>>> the 2.1 tag.  Sure enough, upon perusal of the tagged root maven.xml,
>>>>> its pulling the openejb branch and not the tag.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am assuming this is an oversight and it should pull the tag orf
>>>>> openejb, not the branch.  Do we need this fixed so we can do a
>>>>> build of
>>>>> our svn tagged 1.1?
>>>> Yes, I noticed this yesterday, also. The build works if you don't run
>>>> m:co (the openejb 2.1 dependencies). So, I don't think we need to rush
>>>> to fix this. Instead we can wait to fix in the normal 1.1.1 release
>>>> cycle, which I think should be soon (in July).
>>>>
>>>> Clearly something that needs to be in a release process checklist.
>>> At release time is one of the rare moments where we don't have a
>>> snapshot dependency on OpenEJB.  Why wouldn't we just disable the m:co?
>>>
>>
>> I still believe there is value getting the state of OpenEJB at tagged
>> level and accessing it with m:co.  Here is an example...
>>
>> I am trying to research some classloading issues regarding OpenEJB and
>> Geronimo 1.1.  It behooves me to have source level access to both
>> OpenEJB and Geronimo for the state of the Geronimo 1.1 release so I can
>> accurately debug the problem.  It would be nice to have the m:co
>> checkout the tagged version of OpenEJB since we are not really supposed
>> to have any snapshots in there.
>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message