Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=h0i86g1K9xWDl+BlMFUF3hHopWqb3Hc+N+L2iXklf26ik6g5E2k1fPo7yFyIZw7C;
  h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Message-ID: <482890AE.9080105@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:47:10 -0400
From: Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Ready to release Geronimo 2.1 samples?
References: <48286545.5000000@earthlink.net> <48286BDD.1020102@earthlink.net>
 <3da992810805121015m4a7c6434k53ca0390ad63fcb8@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3da992810805121015m4a7c6434k53ca0390ad63fcb8@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ted Kirby wrote:
> I'd like to get G4009 in if possible.  I have provided a patch to fix
> some HTML errors and warnings, although the sample runs without this
> patch.
> 

Thanks Ted.  I'll take a look at the patch.

Joe


> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any reason not to release the current Geronimo 2.1 samples
>> (https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/samples/branches/2.1)?
>>> I'd be glad to work to get a release candidate created for this (I've
>> already done some prep to get things updated for the new release process).
>>> Once we get the 2.1 Samples released we can turn around and release the
>> 2.1.1 samples and then I think we'll finally be "up to date".
>>> I have some questions about how we might accomplish this via the new
>> process but I'll follow that up in another note.
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>  BTW, I know that there are cleanup things to be done (like removing
>> references to snapshots, and ensuring license, notice files are correct,
>> etc....).  I was more looking for input regarding the state of the samples.
>> Are some samples flat-out broken or is there some reason that a particular
>> sample under branches/2.1 should not be released at all?
>>
>>  Joe
>>
>>
>