Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EB1044A3E for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:54:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 90218 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jul 2011 06:54:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 89762 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jul 2011 06:54:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 89755 invoked by uid 99); 11 Jul 2011 06:54:01 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:54:01 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of xhhsld@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.50] (HELO mail-ww0-f50.google.com) (74.125.82.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:53:54 +0000 Received: by wwe6 with SMTP id 6so3377355wwe.31 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:53:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=K999PAmA1ry0TfNxInTfTPmd9dZocmasUDFJQsshqSQ=; b=Bi/wTadoOobb3idhOaGkW2adCgPqVR1wbPVfFbQDRzdmGKu7UGvLCX3BZVCEWveeqj nli9opNdmx8ZegjxgyY1+P8/xm2weYYMAcige+j1yDTi+GxM7zJUbN/CWZBTuQ9sHAcM +zCQS1JLqIte8n2T2t828klCvofsRzG84+Iwg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.234.98 with SMTP id r76mr2763881weq.36.1310367214415; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.87.195 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:53:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <81F05323-D60E-4496-8F53-11DC110B41CA@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:53:34 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Pull Tomcat 7.0.18 to Geronimo side From: Ivan To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd5168c572f2c04a7c5a45e X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --000e0cd5168c572f2c04a7c5a45e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I merged all of the changes mentioned in the thread http://old.nabble.com/Preparing-for-a-7.0.19-tag-td32031213.html , now the 7.0.18.0 branch from Geronimo side has the same contents with the Tomcat trunk rev.1144976GERONIMO-5622 Also, an extra changes from Geronimo side is also added, GERONIMO-5622. it will be better that someone could also help to review those changes. If we would release this 7.0.18 branch, which version should be used ? 7.0.18.0 or 7.0.18.1, which is mentioned in the past. The reason for 7.0.18.1 is that, it indicates that some extra changes are done comparing the 7.0.18 code base from Tomcat. Thanks. 2011/7/11 Ivan > Yes, I will go ahead to pull the codes of 7.0.18, and apply those fixes on > our code base, it is better to know whether the TCK is fine with the new > version, also it looks to me that some integration changes are required. > And it depends on whether Tomcat will release 7.0.19 soon, we could pull > the latest 7.0.19 or release a 7.0.18.1 version with Geronimo 3.0. > > 2011/7/10 Kevan Miller > >> >> On Jul 10, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Ivan wrote: >> >> > Seems that there are some issues with 7.0.18, and Tomcat community is >> preparing for 7.0.19. >> >> So I see... I read the tomcat list last night, not this morning.... ;-) >> >> It would be a good idea to pull in an early version and identify any >> integration or tck issues. >> >> Anyway, thanks for tracking this... >> >> --kevan > > > > > -- > Ivan > -- Ivan --000e0cd5168c572f2c04a7c5a45e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I merged all of the changes mentioned in the thread=A0h= ttp://old.nabble.com/Preparing-for-a-7.0.19-tag-td32031213.html=A0, now= the 7.0.18.0 branch from Geronimo side has the same contents with the Tomc= at trunk rev.1144976GERONIMO-5622=A0
A= lso, an extra changes from Geronimo side is also added,=A0=A0GERONIMO-5622.= it wi= ll be better that someone could also help to review those changes.

If we would release this 7.0.18 branch, which= version should be used ? 7.0.18.0 or 7.0.18.1, which is mentioned in the p= ast. The reason for 7.0.18.1 is that, it indicates that some extra changes = are done comparing the 7.0.18 code base from Tomcat.
Thanks.

2011/7/11 Ivan <xhhsl= d@gmail.com>
Yes, I will go ahead to pull the codes of 7.0.18, and apply those fixes on = our code base, it is better to know whether the TCK is fine with the new ve= rsion, also it looks to me that some integration changes are required.
And it depends on whether Tomcat will release 7.0.19 soon, we could pull th= e latest 7.0.19 or release a 7.0.18.1 version with Geronimo 3.0.

2011/7/10 Kevan Miller <<= a href=3D"mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">kevan.miller@gma= il.com>

On Jul 10, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Ivan wrote:

> Seems that there are some issues with 7.0.18, and Tomcat community is = preparing for 7.0.19.

So I see... I read the tomcat list last night, not this morning.... ;= -)

It would be a good idea to pull in an early version and identify any integr= ation or tck issues.

Anyway, thanks for tracking this...

--kevan



-- <= br>Ivan



--
Ivan
--000e0cd5168c572f2c04a7c5a45e--