Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-87029-apmail-tomcat-dev-archive=tomcat.apache.org@tomcat.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 91389 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2008 18:57:41 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Feb 2008 18:57:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 99831 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2008 18:57:30 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-dev-archive@tomcat.apache.org
Received: (qmail 99791 invoked by uid 500); 5 Feb 2008 18:57:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@tomcat.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@tomcat.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.tomcat.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@tomcat.apache.org
Received: (qmail 99780 invoked by uid 99); 5 Feb 2008 18:57:30 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:57:30 -0800
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [64.97.136.191] (HELO n082.sc1.he.tucows.com) (64.97.136.191)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:57:13 +0000
Received: from sc1-out05.emaildefenseservice.com (64.97.139.2) by
 n082.sc1.he.tucows.com (7.2.069.1)
        id 4769FAD4008B26D0 for dev@tomcat.apache.org;
 Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:57:04 +0000
X-SpamScore: 2
X-Spamcatcher-Summary: 
 2,0,0,66b1ad35879e4fb9,e5b755e0c43a8013,markt@apache.org,-,RULES_HIT:152:355:379:599:601:854:947:960:966:967:973:982:988:989:1187:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1358:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1676:1711:1730:1747:1766:1792:2196:2199:2379:2393:2525:2559:2563:2682:2685:2827:2857:2859:2900:2933:2937:2939:2942:2945:2947:2951:2954:3022:3027:3353:3865:3866:3867:3868:3869:3870:3871:3872:3874:3934:3936:3938:3941:3944:4385:5007:6119:7652:7679,
	0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not
 bulk,SPF:fu,MSBL:none,DNSBL:none
X-Spamcatcher-Explanation: 
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (unknown [91.109.161.70])
	(Authenticated sender: med.thomas)
	by sc1-out05.emaildefenseservice.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	for <dev@tomcat.apache.org>; Tue,  5 Feb 2008 18:57:01 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <47A8B177.9020300@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:56:55 +0000
From: Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tomcat Developers List <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release build 6.0.16
References: <1201702866.9846.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <47A79D15.6010502@kippdata.de> <47A8331B.3020005@apache.org>
 <47A8956D.9000205@kippdata.de>
In-Reply-To: <47A8956D.9000205@kippdata.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

Rainer Jung wrote:
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
>> Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> Remy Maucherat schrieb:
>>>> The candidates binaries are available here:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~remm/tomcat-6/v6.0.16/
>>>>
>>>> According to the release process, the 6.0.16 tag is:
>>>> [ ] Broken
>>>> [ ] Alpha
>>>> [ ] Beta
>>>> [X] Stable
>>>>
>>>> Rémy
>>>
>>> One small note: there is a new Thumbs.db file in 
>>> server/webapps/host-manager/images which doesn't come from svn and 
>>> wasn't there in 6.0.14. I guess it was auto-generated by some of 
>>> those smart service on the build system and we don't really want it 
>>> in future releases.
>>
>> That's caused by me building on Windows [XP] for the Windows 
>> installer. I can redo the binaries before putting them in the wild, 
>> but obviously it shouldn't be a huge issue.
>>
>> Rémy
> 
> I would agree with keeping the files we used for testing. No need for 
> repackaging, ...
<snip />

As far as our voting goes, the only thing that matters is the source 
release. We are free to re-package the binaries as much, or as little, as 
we wish providing we don't modify the build script since that would be 
modifying the source.

Personally, I would repackage it but I am not that bothered about it. I am 
happy which ever way Remy chooses to go on this.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org