geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Date Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:30:38 GMT
Can't argue with #2.  I can't see how these got picked up and it is  
sloppy.  I'm ok with knocking this set of binaries down.  Although,  
I'm not sure I want to invest more time on this milestone as there  
are lots of functional pieces to fix.

Anyone else want to put together an M4 or shall we pass this month?



On Apr 3, 2007, at 1:51 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> I'm -1 on releasing as is because of (2).  I think our binaries  
> should be cleaner that that :-/
>
> I don't think (1) is significant.  There is no functional change  
> from applying the patch from GERONIMO-2941.
> (3) also doesn't bother me.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:57 AM, Rakesh Midha wrote:
>
>> I think we need to look into following issues:
>> 1. Initial startup error caused by https://issues.apache.org/jira/ 
>> browse/GERONIMO-2941
>>
>> 2. Why is that in console's Application section and deployment  
>> list-module, I see all the modules twice?
>> One with the version 2.0-M4, appears as started and one with  
>> version 2.0-M4-SNAPSHOT stopped. All the modules also have two  
>> folders for two versions.
>> Its not causing any error or exception, but i am just worried as  
>> this result in larger size of zip/gz and installed folder, and may  
>> also have other effects.
>>
>> 3. Shutdown error.
>>
>> thanks
>> Rakesh
>>
>>
>> On 4/3/07, Jacek Laskowski <jacek@laskowski.net.pl > wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Jacek
>>
>> On 4/1/07, Matt Hogstrom < matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> > I have placed the 2.0-M4 binaries out on http://people.apache.org/
>> > ~hogstrom/2.0-M4-rc1 for you to take a look at.  (They are  
>> uploading
>> > as I write this).
>> >
>> > I have done some testing with DayTrader.  There is an issue in
>> > connecting with he MDB container which still needs to be worked out
>> > so the application will not deploy as is.  However, given the  
>> scopwe
>> > of function DayTrader covers as well as all the late code drops I
>> > don't see an issue with that.  Smaller samples should be ok and  
>> tests
>> > look good.  Given that we're in the final stages of testing I'd  
>> like
>> > to get this Milestone on the wire as is and fix issues in trunk.
>> > Users that pull this binary and report issues will help us in the
>> > Drive to 5.
>> >
>> > Other than that limitation I think this Milestone looks ready to  
>> go.
>> >
>> > After reviewing the content please cast your vote.
>> >
>> > [ ] +1 - Release these binaries
>> > [ ]   0
>> > [ ] -1 Do not release these binaries (provide reason)
>> >
>> > This vote will conclude on April 4th at 0600 Eastern.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacek Laskowski
>> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>>
>


Mime
View raw message