Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=Lj0aZltrjautgcVEQ3by20BGJI3BuHRxJyfEbMnsLIPdL1g1tXt1N6QvxNdR53XC;
  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: <4B223993.9040605@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:22:43 -0500
From: Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] geronimo 2.2 release (2nd try)
References: <90F21E66-1CDE-422C-B29A-43517BDF034B@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <90F21E66-1CDE-422C-B29A-43517BDF034B@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm still not happy about the README & RELEASE_NOTES missing from the 
assemblies ... so I was kinda hoping some other more critical problem 
was found so that we could include these on a re-spin :-) .  However, I 
don't think it makes sense to stop the vote for just that so here is my 
+1.

Everything else I checked looked good.

Joe


David Jencks wrote:
> I've managed to come up with a 2nd 2.2 release candidate built using the 
> maven-release-plugin.
> 
> This includes Kevan;s fixes of source headers and a warning removal.
> 
> See the jira issues here:
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10220&styleName=Html&version=12312965 
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10220&styleName=Html&version=12312965>
> 
> Staged to
> 
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-043/ 
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-024>
> 
> The main artifacts up for vote are the source release archives
> 
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-043/org/apache/geronimo/geronimo/2.2/geronimo-2.2-source-release.tar.gz 
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-024/org/apache/geronimo/geronimo/2.2/geronimo-2.2-source-release.tar.gz>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-043/org/apache/geronimo/geronimo/2.2/geronimo-2.2-source-release.zip 
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-024/org/apache/geronimo/geronimo/2.2/geronimo-2.2-source-release.zip>
> 
> If you vote you should at least examine these and make sure something 
> plausible builds from them.
> 
> 
> [  ] +1 about time to push this out the door
> [  ]  0 no opinion
> [  ] -1 not this one  (please explain why)
> 
> Many thanks
> david jencks