geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Date Thu, 06 May 2010 01:22:36 GMT
IIRC I came up with the 4 digits and I was thinking exactly this, we can release many ports
of a given tomcat release this way.  Having the same number of digits as tomcat won't work.
 If they used 4 we'd be in trouble :-)

thanks
david jencks

On May 5, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Ivan wrote:

> I think that our four version numbers could help us, while Tomcat always has three version
number. In next iteration, we call our version 7.0.0.1, which means more changes are merged
from Tomcat 7 dev tree ......
> 
> 2010/5/5 Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1vamsi1c@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On May 4, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> 
> >
> > +1 (assuming the potential license issue mentioned below is not an issue)
> >
> > I was able to build and run the new tomcat image.
> >
> > The license issue pointed out last time is now resolved but there is one other potential
issue.  I noticed a number of files under jasper-el that are generated using JJTree &
JavaCC and so have the following header but no Apache license header.  For example:
> >
> > /* Generated By:JJTree&JavaCC: Do not edit this line. ELParser.java */
> >
> > Some other generated files include both a generated header and which is immediately
followed by the Apache license header.  This seems a little better to me.  However, I see
that we have released these without the Apache header in earlier versions (and Tomcat as well)
- so I presume there must be some valid justification for not including an Apache License
header in these files.  Just pointing it out now in case it really needs some attention and
has just escaped being noticed until now.  Comments?
> 
> I've certainly noticed them in the past... Machine generated files do not require license
headers. So, IMO, these files are fine.
> 
> I do have a question about the version #. IIUC, we are releasing 7.0.0 prior to the TC
community. There may be fixes applied to the Tomcat dev tree prior to their 7.0 release. So,
this release may not exactly match the functionality of the tomcat release. Is everyone evaluating
that in their decision?
> 
> --kevan
> 
> I think there are two many zeros in the version number too. How about we use a version
number similar to "6.0.18-G678601" like we have in G 2.x builds?
> 
> -- 
> Vamsi
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ivan


Mime
View raw message