geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Dudney <>
Subject Re: Tag 1.1 issue?
Date Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:12:36 GMT
Hi Jeff,

I think dropping the m:co is fine as long as there is a way to get to  
the source code. I did not see openejb src released with the jar's here;

but if I recall correctly its a snap to get m2 to push src jars as  
well. Maybe we could get one pushed from the tag and then disable the  

Just a thought.


Bill Dudney
MyFaces -
Cayenne -

On Jul 7, 2006, at 11:47 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:

> 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

View raw message