geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan <xhh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Date Sat, 08 May 2010 14:52:48 GMT
I promote the artifacts according to the instructions on the release-plugin
site, but I did not find them in the centry repository maven2, would they be
synched automatically ? Or any other steps I need to do ?
Thanks !

2010/5/8 Ivan <xhhsld@gmail.com>

> OK, thanks for all of your support, we pass the vote for Tomcat 7.0.0.1. I
> will promote it to central repository later.
> Three binding vote :
> Rick, Ivan, and Joe Bohn.
>
> 2010/5/8 Ivan <xhhsld@gmail.com>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ivan
>



-- 
Ivan

Mime
View raw message