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 829F59FAC for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 04:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 87120 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2012 04:04:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 86986 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2012 04:04:58 -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 86936 invoked by uid 99); 25 Jun 2012 04:04:57 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 04:04:57 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of forrestxm@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.182 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.182] (HELO mail-we0-f182.google.com) (74.125.82.182) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 04:04:49 +0000 Received: by werg1 with SMTP id g1so3279334wer.13 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:04:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=IRol24TuDSq+ZSQenqSTLRJeLHBSMsAm1dPv0uhlWss=; b=UbTad0vFQav8qYvp11lrD8MQXkZH+b4FZzCtctUNQ5nhKVrrVy+loMRpiC+ZM3ACSv sW5/ICSGmAuRzKh1UP7XYASbkHQnvNddv5JdRrfvo3Kr8byPXv++h6WYur516n5QbWya vUecIxe+mo9//SPOH5c0S4Y1OYaVXsALk+0kLM9B1gktHci1WBb+FqfjAYU9Fc0Nm5OW zHjJazyURiyONYzd9SlwKb0H566ISOvcuHIbXRGnZ/pGfJUMsiKzqDmbi/6YEYfX9nR6 ZuMVwNV8pgw3hxsGogupC3MlyBOAR4t4ghz6IOq7H//fmjz3AVsCDKysSGeIlMXuR2/S qdKg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.131.69 with SMTP id l47mr4810558wei.44.1340597068635; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.72.147 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:04:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:04:28 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals From: Forrest Xia To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d5895e101e0304c34414db --0016e6d5895e101e0304c34414db Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Echo Jarek's response here in dev list again: So it looks like we have quite a bit of failures on Jetty. I guess we either have to drop it from the release (if we want to release soon) or try to fix it and delay the release. Thoughts? My thought is to drop jetty release for 3.0.0 and roll out tomcat assembly asap. Any more thoughts about 3.0.0 release?? On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Forrest Xia wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: > >> >> On Jun 22, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Forrest Xia wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Forrest Xia >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Forrest Xia >> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: >> > How are things with Jetty? Some user emails gave me an impression that >> > things don't look too good. If things with Jetty are looking bad then >> > we should either consider dropping it from the release or delaying the >> > release until we get it in shape. >> > Some status consolidation here about Jetty assembly in 3.0 branch: >> > 1. BV and DI tck all pass for jetty8-javaee6 assembly >> > 2. JCDI and full profile execution just triggered, we will see some >> results after two days. >> > JCDI tck against jetty8-javaee6 failed most of the cases. >> > Jetty assembly results: >> > Tests 37068 >> > Passed 23616 >> > Failed 13452 >> >> Forrest -- too much TCK information on a public list. TCK terms may be >> improving in the future. However, until then, we should not talk about test >> names, numbers of tests, etc. >> > OK, got it, sorry for that. > >> >> --kevan > > > > > -- > Thanks! > > Regards, Forrest > > -- Thanks! Regards, Forrest --0016e6d5895e101e0304c34414db Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Echo Jarek's response here in dev list again:

So it looks like = we have quite a bit of failures on Jetty. I guess we
either have to drop it from the release (if we want to release soon)
or try to fix it and delay the release. Thoughts?

My thought is to d= rop jetty release for 3.0.0 and roll out tomcat assembly asap. Any more tho= ughts about 3.0.0 release??

On Sat, Jun 2= 3, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com> wrot= e:


On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.m= iller@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 22, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Forrest Xia wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com> = wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Forrest Xia <forrestxm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Jarek Gawor <jgawor@gmail.com> wrote:
> How are things with Jetty? Some user emails gave me an impression that=
> things don't look too good. If things with Jetty are looking bad t= hen
> we should either consider dropping it from the release or delaying the=
> release until we get it in shape.
> Some status consolidation here about Jetty assembly in 3.0 branch:
> 1. BV and DI tck all pass for jetty8-javaee6 assembly
> 2. JCDI and full profile execution just triggered, we will see some re= sults after two days.
> JCDI tck against jetty8-javaee6 failed most of the cases.
> Jetty assembly results:
> Tests 37068
> Passed =A0 =A0 =A0 =A023616
> Failed =A0 =A0 =A0 =A013452

Forrest -- too much TCK information on a public list. TCK terms may b= e improving in the future. However, until then, we should not talk about te= st names, numbers of tests, etc.
OK, got i= t, sorry for that.

--kevan



--
Thanks!

Regards, Forre= st




--
Thanks!
Regards, Forrest

--0016e6d5895e101e0304c34414db--