geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan <xhh...@gmail.com>
Subject [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Date Sat, 08 May 2010 12:37:34 GMT
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

Mime
View raw message