geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Subject Re: Tag 1.1 issue?
Date Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:35:17 GMT
David Jencks wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:08 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:54 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>>> On 7/7/06, Jeff Genender <> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> I'll do you one even better, Jeff ...
>>> I've just discovered that geronimo/tags/1.1.0 depends on openejb 2.1
>>> branch which depends on geronimo-1.1.1-SNAPSHOT.
>> Right, geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT (not 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT).
>>> This means that any
>>> user with a clean environment who is interested in building Geronimo
>>> 1.1 from source and somehow figures out that Geronimo 1.1resides in
>>> geronimo/tags/1.1.0 and follows the bulid instructions on the wiki
>>> will wind up with the following error:
>> I'm fine documenting this as long as it's made completely clear it 
>> isn't at all necessary.  One can build Geronimo just fine when 
>> skipping the optional 'm:co' step.
>>> Those are missing deps on Geronimo 1.1.1 while building Geronimo 1.1.
>>> In other words, geronimo/tags/1.1.0 is permanently broken. IMO, this
>>> issue is worse than we originally thought.
>> Not that I don't agree it's a screwed up situation, but 
>> geronimo/tags/1.1.0 is perfectly fine -- building openejb is 
>> optional.  It's openejb/tags/v2_1/ that's permanently broken.  In 
>> fact all the openejb 2x tags are broken in exactly the same way.  All 
>> openejb 2.x releases are cut before Geronimo releases so a given 
>> Geronimo release doesn't have to have a snapshot dependency on openejb.
>>> To fix this issue, I changed m:checkout to grab the openejb 2.1 tag.
>>> Then I changed the geronimo_version in my local copy of the openejb
>>> 2.1 tag from 1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1. After this, Geronimo 1.1 built
>>> successfully for me.
>>> At a minimum this solution should be documented in the appropriate
>>> locations. Maximally, we should consider fixing 1.1.
>> What would you recommend?
> I think that we need to release like this:
> geronimo jars (and possibly non-openejb configs) (possibly also 
> non-openejb assemblies such as minimal)
> openejb jars (and possibly openejb configs)
> other configs (???? perhaps these should all be independently released 
> plugins)
> assemblies.
> I don't think we can realistically do this on the 1.1/2.1 branches but 
> it might be a realistic goal for 1.2/2.2

Do you think that things could be simplified if we broke up Geronimo 
into separate "product lines" instead of having a trunk that's a big 


View raw message