Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4BC8BD2A.4040606@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:40:26 -0400
From: Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Java EE specs (second try)
References: <4BC8777C.4060409@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BC8777C.4060409@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

A little confused here....

For JPA, you mentioned jpa_3.0_spec-1.2, but I'm guessing you meant
jpa_2.0_spec-1.2.

Looking at the tags, I see 2 releases of jpa_2.0_spec since I released
the jpa_2.0_spec-1.0 release -
   2.0_spec-1.0.1
   2.0_spec-1.2
But only the 2.0_spec-1.2 artifacts are in the staging repo.  Looks like
you created the 1.0.1 tag -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r934135 | rickmcguire | 2010-04-14 15:21:41 -0400 (Wed, 14 Apr 2010) | 1
line
[maven-scm] copy for tag geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is not being released, shouldn't we delete it from svn?

Also, why did we jump to 1.2 instead of using jpa_2.0_spec-1.1 as the
next version?


-Donald


On 4/16/10 10:43 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> To support the upcoming Geronimo milestone release, I would like to
> release Java EE 6 versions of the geronimo specifications.  This is a
> single vote
> for all specs new or updated for Java EE 6.  In addition, the specs have
> been updated
> with common support for OSGi interactions.  The RAT and IANAL plugins
> have been run against
> of the projects.  All non-beta specs have clean TCK signature tests.
> 
>  Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>  
>  [ ] +1  approve
>  [ ] +0  no opinion
>  [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>  
>  
>  Staging repo:
>  https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-030/
> 
> Unless noted, the source repos are relative to location
> 
>  https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/
> 
> and have the same final element as the artifact name.
> 
> I am not listing each location individually because the mailing list
> server rejected my
> original email as spam because of the large number of links in the
> email.  I apologize for the incovenience.
>  
>  The following specs are being voted on
> 
>  geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.1
>  geronimo-annotation_1.1_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-atinject_1.0_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-ejb_3.1_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-el_2.2_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-interceptor_1.1_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.6_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-jacc_1.4_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-jaspic_1.0_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec-1.0.1
>  geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec-1.7
> 
> and the closely associated provider and uber jar releases.
> 
>  geronimo-javamail_1.4-1.8
> 
>     Source location:
>      geronimo/javamail/tags/geronimo-javamail_1.4-1.8
> 
>  geronimo-jaxb_2.2_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-jaxr_1.0_spec-2.1
>  geronimo-jaxrpc_1.1_spec-2.1
>  geronimo-jaxrs_1.1_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-jaxws_2.2_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-jcdi_1.0_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.2
>  geronimo-jsp_2.2_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-osgi-support-1.0
>  geronimo-saaj_1.3_spec-1.1
>  geronimo-servlet_3.0_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-stax-api_1.2_spec-1.0
>  geronimo-validation_1.0_spec-1.1
>  geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec-1.1.3
> 
>  geronimo-ccpp_1.0_spec-1.0-beta (this is a beta version that has not
> been verified via TCK yet)
>  
> 
>