Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.160.182 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=STW6qitoFSxLJ7CSSKJAAllT+mXNWxf0+HIPUMYTpcn6ttKbphbgm2snCT4Hbw74Ht
         ygQELhensxxsGW4Q7QDd1XEyXg2dGcAqkdohRT4vGrtYh4yVfzBw3gLXX0ge1mBZqGic
         aoPdSuNia8VaW0efqePeC+k0S0f67YWqZBk6Y=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Subject: Re: Bad 2.2.1 release
From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <FF0EE859-3661-4700-B78C-CC18945F1FDD@visi.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 21:13:07 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FEB1CEA7-5871-4B4F-AFF8-571FB9D086F0@gmail.com>
References: <FF0EE859-3661-4700-B78C-CC18945F1FDD@visi.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org


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. =20
>=20
> $ cd /tmp
> $ wget -q =
http://www.apache.org/dist/geronimo/2.2.1/geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5-2.2.1-b=
in.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
>=20
> $ wget -q -U Maven =
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/openejb/openejb-core/3.1.4/openej=
b-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
>=20
>=20
> Unfortunately that old openejb-3.1.4 binary contains this bug:
>=20
>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-1394
>=20
> 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=