geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan <xhh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Date Sat, 08 May 2010 01:29:38 GMT
Hi, just find that while stopping the server, there is some exceptions about
failing to unregister some Tomcat MBeans, I guess that there is still some
issues about MBean in Tomcat while I pull the codes. However, I did not
think that it is a blocking error. If no objection, I would pass the vote
and promote the Tomcat to center repository.

2010/5/6 Rex Wang <rwonly@gmail.com>

> Agree, We can just add a comment in its pom, which records the revision our
> external tomcat based on.
>
> -Rex
>
> 2010/5/6 Ivan <xhhsld@gmail.com>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lei Wang (Rex)
> rwonly AT apache.org
>



-- 
Ivan

Mime
View raw message