geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shawn Jiang <genspr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bad 2.2.1 release
Date Wed, 05 Jan 2011 05:18:13 GMT
Sorry,  I uploaded the versions to dist in my machine.  It contains
the  bad openejb 3.1.4 release which was downloaded when I used the
staging one to run tck.

Because Maven won't download the release artifacts again if there's
local one.   To avoid this kind of problems in the future,  we should
add a step in the release process to delete local repo before starting
the release.

This time, Luckily,  Rex could help upload the right geronimo
artifacts in his local machine to dist again to fix this.

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Rex Wang <rwonly@gmail.com> wrote:
> Verified.
>
> the one
> http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/assemblies/geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5/2.2.1/geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5-2.2.1-bin.tar.gz
> is correct.
>
> So we need replace the wrong one in dist.
>
> -Rex
>
> 2011/1/5 Rex Wang <rwonly@gmail.com>
>>
>> I remember I did clean the local repo before making 221 release artifacts.
>> I checked the openejb-core in my local repo and it is the one of 12 Nov,
>> so I think the
>> http://www.apache.org/dist/geronimo/2.2.1/geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5-2.2.1-bin.tar.gz
>> might be different from the one in maven public repo which promoted from
>> staging repo
>> http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/assemblies/geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5/2.2.1/geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5-2.2.1-bin.tar.gz
>>
>> I am downloading it to verify...
>>
>> -Rex
>>
>> 2011/1/5 Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> On Jan 4, 2011, at 4:44 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>> > Looks like our 2.2.1 release does not contain the final OpenEJB 3.1.4
>>> > binaries and instead contains older binaries from a release vote that never
>>> > passed.
>>> >
>>> > $ cd /tmp
>>> > $ wget -q
>>> > http://www.apache.org/dist/geronimo/2.2.1/geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5-2.2.1-bin.tar.gz
>>> > $ tar xzf geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5-2.2.1-bin.tar.gz
>>> > $ jar tvf
>>> > /tmp/geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5-2.2.1/repository/org/apache/openejb/openejb-core/3.1.4/openejb-core-3.1.4.jar
>>> > | tail
>>> >   562 Sun Oct 31 21:28:14 PDT 2010 org/openejb/OpenEJB.class
>>> >  7379 Sun Oct 31 21:28:10 PDT 2010 schema/openejb-jar.xsd
>>> >  6545 Sun Oct 31 21:28:10 PDT 2010 schema/openejb.xsd
>>> >  2882 Sun Oct 31 21:28:10 PDT 2010 schema/service-jar.xsd
>>> >    32 Sun Oct 31 21:28:10 PDT 2010 users.properties
>>> >     0 Sun Oct 31 21:33:30 PDT 2010 META-INF/maven/
>>> >     0 Sun Oct 31 21:33:30 PDT 2010 META-INF/maven/org.apache.openejb/
>>> >     0 Sun Oct 31 21:33:30 PDT 2010
>>> > META-INF/maven/org.apache.openejb/openejb-core/
>>> > 14964 Sun Oct 31 20:57:22 PDT 2010
>>> > META-INF/maven/org.apache.openejb/openejb-core/pom.xml
>>> >   115 Sun Oct 31 21:33:30 PDT 2010
>>> > META-INF/maven/org.apache.openejb/openejb-core/pom.properties
>>> >
>>> > $ wget -q -U Maven
>>> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/openejb/openejb-core/3.1.4/openejb-core-3.1.4.jar
>>> > $ jar tvf openejb-core-3.1.4.jar | tail
>>> >   562 Fri Nov 12 15:32:08 PST 2010 org/openejb/OpenEJB.class
>>> >  7379 Fri Nov 12 15:32:06 PST 2010 schema/openejb-jar.xsd
>>> >  6545 Fri Nov 12 15:32:06 PST 2010 schema/openejb.xsd
>>> >  2882 Fri Nov 12 15:32:06 PST 2010 schema/service-jar.xsd
>>> >    32 Fri Nov 12 15:32:06 PST 2010 users.properties
>>> >     0 Fri Nov 12 15:32:14 PST 2010 META-INF/maven/
>>> >     0 Fri Nov 12 15:32:14 PST 2010 META-INF/maven/org.apache.openejb/
>>> >     0 Fri Nov 12 15:32:14 PST 2010
>>> > META-INF/maven/org.apache.openejb/openejb-core/
>>> > 14964 Fri Nov 12 15:12:40 PST 2010
>>> > META-INF/maven/org.apache.openejb/openejb-core/pom.xml
>>> >   115 Fri Nov 12 15:32:12 PST 2010
>>> > META-INF/maven/org.apache.openejb/openejb-core/pom.properties
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Unfortunately that old openejb-3.1.4 binary contains this bug:
>>> >
>>> >  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-1394
>>> >
>>> > We'll definitely need another 2.2.x release of some kind.  Whether or
>>> > not we want to include any other fixes is probably a good discussion to
>>> > have.
>>>
>>> Yep. Thanks for finding that... Seems like we need to update our release
>>> process to include a "delete your local maven repository" step... Or some
>>> other precaution to prevent this from happening.
>>>
>>> --kevan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lei Wang (Rex)
>> rwonly AT apache.org
>
>
>
> --
> Lei Wang (Rex)
> rwonly AT apache.org
>



-- 
Shawn

Mime
View raw message