You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by David Blevins <da...@visi.com> on 2010/03/24 08:45:08 UTC
[VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
something up with good signatures.
The branch to become a tag:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
The binaries:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK numbers
against the proposed binaries.
-David
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>.
Hi, David:
If possible, I hope that OPENEJB-1246 could be included in the coming
openejb-3.0.2. I am trying to run a full TCK for the build with the patch
applied from Geronimo side, but it might need two days to get the final
result.
2010/3/24 David Blevins <da...@visi.com>
> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
> something up with good signatures.
>
> The branch to become a tag:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>
> The binaries:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>
> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>
> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK numbers
> against the proposed binaries.
>
>
> -David
>
>
--
Ivan
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Mar 24, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Jonathan Gallimore wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I'm trying to run the usual ant build script that grabs the itest
> artifacts from the Maven repository and tries to run them against
> OpenEJB standalone and in Tomcat. I'm getting a
> java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/apache/xbean/finder/ClassFinder
> error. (Full log and build script attached). Is this a problem?
Not critical is it's largely aimed at Geronimo 2.1.5, but we get it
running that is a plus.
-David
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:45 AM, David Blevins
> <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
> something up with good signatures.
>
> The branch to become a tag:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>
> The binaries:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>
> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>
> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK
> numbers against the proposed binaries.
>
>
> -David
>
>
> <build-log.txt><build.xml>
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Mar 28, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Ivan wrote:
> I might give up to merge it to the coming Geronimo 2.1.5 :-(
No worries, we can hold the vote open for as long as you're willing to
keep fighting :) And thanks for putting so much effort into it --
very appreciated!
We'll be waiting for your signal.
-David
> 2010/3/29 David Blevins <da...@visi.com>
>
>>
>> On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Ivan wrote:
>>>
>>> Please ignore my previous request, it might not completly fix the
>>> issue I
>>>> wanted :-(
>>>>
>>>
>>> Chatting with Ivan on IRC. We're going to try an alternate
>>> technique to
>>> finding the issue. Basically the object in question is not
>>> designed for
>>> multi-threaded use under the assumption that is designed only to
>>> be used
>>> inside the transaction in which it was created -- and all
>>> transactions are
>>> single threaded.
>>>
>>> So we came up with an alternate patch:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12439747/OPENEJB-1246-alt.txt
>>>
>>> We'll wait for some TCK data on that and see if that doesn't help
>>> illuminate the issue caused by the related ActiveMQ fix Ivan is
>>> working
>>> with.
>>>
>>
>> So where are we at with the ActiveMQ/EJB issues?
>>
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> 2010/3/25 Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to run the usual ant build script that grabs the itest
>>>>> artifacts
>>>>> from the Maven repository and tries to run them against OpenEJB
>>>>> standalone
>>>>> and in Tomcat. I'm getting a java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
>>>>> org/apache/xbean/finder/ClassFinder error. (Full log and build
>>>>> script
>>>>> attached). Is this a problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:45 AM, David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally
>>>>> got
>>>>>> something up with good signatures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The branch to become a tag:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The binaries:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK
>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>> against the proposed binaries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ivan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ivan
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>.
I might give up to merge it to the coming Geronimo 2.1.5 :-(
2010/3/29 David Blevins <da...@visi.com>
>
> On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Ivan wrote:
>>
>> Please ignore my previous request, it might not completly fix the issue I
>>> wanted :-(
>>>
>>
>> Chatting with Ivan on IRC. We're going to try an alternate technique to
>> finding the issue. Basically the object in question is not designed for
>> multi-threaded use under the assumption that is designed only to be used
>> inside the transaction in which it was created -- and all transactions are
>> single threaded.
>>
>> So we came up with an alternate patch:
>>
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12439747/OPENEJB-1246-alt.txt
>>
>> We'll wait for some TCK data on that and see if that doesn't help
>> illuminate the issue caused by the related ActiveMQ fix Ivan is working
>> with.
>>
>
> So where are we at with the ActiveMQ/EJB issues?
>
>
>
> -David
>
>
>>
>>> 2010/3/25 Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to run the usual ant build script that grabs the itest
>>>> artifacts
>>>> from the Maven repository and tries to run them against OpenEJB
>>>> standalone
>>>> and in Tomcat. I'm getting a java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
>>>> org/apache/xbean/finder/ClassFinder error. (Full log and build script
>>>> attached). Is this a problem?
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:45 AM, David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com
>>>> >wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
>>>>> something up with good signatures.
>>>>>
>>>>> The branch to become a tag:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>>>>>
>>>>> The binaries:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>>>>>
>>>>> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK numbers
>>>>> against the proposed binaries.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Ivan
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Ivan wrote:
>
>> Please ignore my previous request, it might not completly fix the
>> issue I
>> wanted :-(
>
> Chatting with Ivan on IRC. We're going to try an alternate
> technique to finding the issue. Basically the object in question is
> not designed for multi-threaded use under the assumption that is
> designed only to be used inside the transaction in which it was
> created -- and all transactions are single threaded.
>
> So we came up with an alternate patch:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12439747/OPENEJB-1246-alt.txt
>
> We'll wait for some TCK data on that and see if that doesn't help
> illuminate the issue caused by the related ActiveMQ fix Ivan is
> working with.
So where are we at with the ActiveMQ/EJB issues?
-David
>
>>
>> 2010/3/25 Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to run the usual ant build script that grabs the itest
>>> artifacts
>>> from the Maven repository and tries to run them against OpenEJB
>>> standalone
>>> and in Tomcat. I'm getting a java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
>>> org/apache/xbean/finder/ClassFinder error. (Full log and build
>>> script
>>> attached). Is this a problem?
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:45 AM, David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
>>>> something up with good signatures.
>>>>
>>>> The branch to become a tag:
>>>>
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>>>>
>>>> The binaries:
>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>>>>
>>>> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>>>>
>>>> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK
>>>> numbers
>>>> against the proposed binaries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ivan
>
>
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Ivan wrote:
> Please ignore my previous request, it might not completly fix the
> issue I
> wanted :-(
Chatting with Ivan on IRC. We're going to try an alternate technique
to finding the issue. Basically the object in question is not
designed for multi-threaded use under the assumption that is designed
only to be used inside the transaction in which it was created -- and
all transactions are single threaded.
So we came up with an alternate patch:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12439747/OPENEJB-1246-alt.txt
We'll wait for some TCK data on that and see if that doesn't help
illuminate the issue caused by the related ActiveMQ fix Ivan is
working with.
-David
>
> 2010/3/25 Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I'm trying to run the usual ant build script that grabs the itest
>> artifacts
>> from the Maven repository and tries to run them against OpenEJB
>> standalone
>> and in Tomcat. I'm getting a java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
>> org/apache/xbean/finder/ClassFinder error. (Full log and build script
>> attached). Is this a problem?
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:45 AM, David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
>>> something up with good signatures.
>>>
>>> The branch to become a tag:
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>>>
>>> The binaries:
>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>>>
>>> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>>>
>>> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK
>>> numbers
>>> against the proposed binaries.
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ivan
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>.
Please ignore my previous request, it might not completly fix the issue I
wanted :-(
2010/3/25 Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>
> Hi David,
>
> I'm trying to run the usual ant build script that grabs the itest artifacts
> from the Maven repository and tries to run them against OpenEJB standalone
> and in Tomcat. I'm getting a java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
> org/apache/xbean/finder/ClassFinder error. (Full log and build script
> attached). Is this a problem?
>
> Jon
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:45 AM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com>wrote:
>
>> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
>> something up with good signatures.
>>
>> The branch to become a tag:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>>
>> The binaries:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>>
>> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>>
>> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK numbers
>> against the proposed binaries.
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>
--
Ivan
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
Hi David,
I'm trying to run the usual ant build script that grabs the itest artifacts
from the Maven repository and tries to run them against OpenEJB standalone
and in Tomcat. I'm getting a java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
org/apache/xbean/finder/ClassFinder error. (Full log and build script
attached). Is this a problem?
Jon
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:45 AM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com>wrote:
> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
> something up with good signatures.
>
> The branch to become a tag:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>
> The binaries:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>
> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>
> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK numbers
> against the proposed binaries.
>
>
> -David
>
>
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Mar 29, 2010, at 8:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Mar 29, 2010, at 3:59 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I'd be pretty uncomfortable with a "whipped up" source archive that wasn't produced by the normal maven release procedure.
>
> That's perhaps a little too restrictive, but I'll do the best I can.
Sounds like it's too late, but my 2 cents...
I'd agree that a normal maven release procedure would be preferred. However, I don't see why it should be *required*. Requiring this would seem a bit counter to the notion that we vote on the source archive -- i.e. I don't like this source archive, because it doesn't produce a source archive. Many Apache projects build a source archive and signature/checksums by hand.
--kevan
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Apr 1, 2010, at 7:20 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> although I think it would have been simpler just to update the
> parent to apache 7.
We can still do that.
Simpler for me at the time was just to grab what I knew would work
from trunk which only took 2-3 minutes.
> I haven't had a chance to review the rest of the release yet.
No problem. Will hold off closing the vote till you get the chance.
If you'd prefer I not wait, then please vote a -+0 and state your -1
concerns were addressed -- just to keep things legally clear.
-David
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Apr 1, 2010, at 4:11 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Mar 29, 2010, at 5:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 29, 2010, at 3:59 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>> I'd be pretty uncomfortable with a "whipped up" source archive that wasn't produced by the normal maven release procedure.
>>
>> That's perhaps a little too restrictive, but I'll do the best I can.
>
> FYI, I did fix up the pom/project to create source and sign them from the maven build then re-rolled the vote.
>
> If you still have concerns happy to address them even if it means more re-rolling.
>
I'm OK with how this source archive is generated, although I think it would have been simpler just to update the parent to apache 7. I haven't had a chance to review the rest of the release yet.
thanks
david jencks
>
> -David
>
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Mar 29, 2010, at 5:35 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Mar 29, 2010, at 3:59 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I'd be pretty uncomfortable with a "whipped up" source archive that
>> wasn't produced by the normal maven release procedure.
>
> That's perhaps a little too restrictive, but I'll do the best I can.
FYI, I did fix up the pom/project to create source and sign them from
the maven build then re-rolled the vote.
If you still have concerns happy to address them even if it means more
re-rolling.
-David
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Mar 29, 2010, at 3:59 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I'd be pretty uncomfortable with a "whipped up" source archive that
> wasn't produced by the normal maven release procedure.
That's perhaps a little too restrictive, but I'll do the best I can.
-David
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
I've completed some tests here, and this generally seems fine. With the
patch I uploaded to GitHub (http://gist.github.com/348454), I was able to
get a clean run with the whole itest suite passing. The patch is only for
the itest client, so I don't think its show stopping if it isn't committed,
but might be nice. The test script (one of David's from a previous release)
I used is here if anyone wants to use it:
http://people.apache.org/~jgallimore/build.xml<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejgallimore/build.xml>
I've run Rat over the source which looks ok to me, some xml/config files
without headers but nothing else. My Rat output is here:
http://people.apache.org/~jgallimore/rat-output.log<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejgallimore/rat-output.log>
I agree with Kevan and David J - I think we should have a signed source
archive as well. Happy to help with any release stuff I can if you decide it
needs re-doing, I realise its pretty time-consuming.
Jon
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:59 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> On Mar 29, 2010, at 2:22 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 24, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Mar 24, 2010, at 3:45 AM, David Blevins wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
> something up with good signatures.
> >>>
> >>> The branch to become a tag:
> >>>
> >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
> >>>
> >>> The binaries:
> >>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
> >>>
> >>> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
> >>>
> >>> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK numbers
> against the proposed binaries.
> >>
> >>
> >> Source and build look good. Is there a signed source archive? I didn't
> find one...
> >
> > Looks like for 3.0.1 we just relied on the individual signed source
> archives created by maven, plus the svn tag. Seems good enough for this
> release as well.
> >
> > I can whip up a tar of the tag if we feel we need it.
>
> My understanding of current apache policy is that the only actually
> required and important artifact in a release is a source bundle sufficient
> to build the project from. Everything else is maven candy :-)
>
> If you use the current apache 7 pom as an ancestor you get this for free.
>
> Since AFAICT this source bundle is missing from the vote I have to vote -1
> on what is out there now. I'd be pretty uncomfortable with a "whipped up"
> source archive that wasn't produced by the normal maven release procedure.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Mar 29, 2010, at 2:22 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Mar 24, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 24, 2010, at 3:45 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got something up with good signatures.
>>>
>>> The branch to become a tag:
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>>>
>>> The binaries:
>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>>>
>>> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>>>
>>> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK numbers against the proposed binaries.
>>
>>
>> Source and build look good. Is there a signed source archive? I didn't find one...
>
> Looks like for 3.0.1 we just relied on the individual signed source archives created by maven, plus the svn tag. Seems good enough for this release as well.
>
> I can whip up a tar of the tag if we feel we need it.
My understanding of current apache policy is that the only actually required and important artifact in a release is a source bundle sufficient to build the project from. Everything else is maven candy :-)
If you use the current apache 7 pom as an ancestor you get this for free.
Since AFAICT this source bundle is missing from the vote I have to vote -1 on what is out there now. I'd be pretty uncomfortable with a "whipped up" source archive that wasn't produced by the normal maven release procedure.
thanks
david jencks
>
> -David
>
>
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Mar 24, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Mar 24, 2010, at 3:45 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
>> something up with good signatures.
>>
>> The branch to become a tag:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>>
>> The binaries:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>>
>> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>>
>> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK
>> numbers against the proposed binaries.
>
>
> Source and build look good. Is there a signed source archive? I
> didn't find one...
Looks like for 3.0.1 we just relied on the individual signed source
archives created by maven, plus the svn tag. Seems good enough for
this release as well.
I can whip up a tar of the tag if we feel we need it.
-David
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Mar 24, 2010, at 3:45 AM, David Blevins wrote:
> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got something up with good signatures.
>
> The branch to become a tag:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>
> The binaries:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>
> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>
> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK numbers against the proposed binaries.
Source and build look good. Is there a signed source archive? I didn't find one...
--kevan
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2 -- CANCELLED
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
Alright, just going to drop and reroll. New vote forthcoming.
-David
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2 -- more votes
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
Don't think the patch came through - its on gist.guthub.com here:
http://gist.github.com/348454
Jon
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm looking at this as we speak - just about to run the Rat tool over the
> source. I got the itests working with the attached patch file, which just
> merges in org.apache.xbean:xbean-finder instead of
> org.apache.openejb:xbean-finder.
>
> Jon
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:28 PM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com>wrote:
>
>> So while Ivan fights with the ActiveMQ issue that might potentially affect
>> the release, let's get some more votes so that we're ready to either close
>> or reroll. Currently, we would need more votes to close.
>>
>> When you get a moment, take a quick look at the binaries and throw down a
>> vote. We're pretty much relying on TCK numbers for this vote -- those are
>> looking good without the ActiveMQ patch that Ivan is working on -- so
>> there's not much "run it" work to do in evaluating this release.
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Mar 24, 2010, at 12:45 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
>>> something up with good signatures.
>>>
>>> The branch to become a tag:
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>>>
>>> The binaries:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>>>
>>> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>>>
>>> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK numbers
>>> against the proposed binaries.
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2 -- more votes
Posted by Jonathan Gallimore <jo...@gmail.com>.
I'm looking at this as we speak - just about to run the Rat tool over the
source. I got the itests working with the attached patch file, which just
merges in org.apache.xbean:xbean-finder instead of
org.apache.openejb:xbean-finder.
Jon
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:28 PM, David Blevins <da...@visi.com>wrote:
> So while Ivan fights with the ActiveMQ issue that might potentially affect
> the release, let's get some more votes so that we're ready to either close
> or reroll. Currently, we would need more votes to close.
>
> When you get a moment, take a quick look at the binaries and throw down a
> vote. We're pretty much relying on TCK numbers for this vote -- those are
> looking good without the ActiveMQ patch that Ivan is working on -- so
> there's not much "run it" work to do in evaluating this release.
>
> -David
>
> On Mar 24, 2010, at 12:45 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
>> something up with good signatures.
>>
>> The branch to become a tag:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>>
>> The binaries:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>>
>> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>>
>> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK numbers
>> against the proposed binaries.
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2 -- more votes
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
So while Ivan fights with the ActiveMQ issue that might potentially
affect the release, let's get some more votes so that we're ready to
either close or reroll. Currently, we would need more votes to close.
When you get a moment, take a quick look at the binaries and throw
down a vote. We're pretty much relying on TCK numbers for this vote
-- those are looking good without the ActiveMQ patch that Ivan is
working on -- so there's not much "run it" work to do in evaluating
this release.
-David
On Mar 24, 2010, at 12:45 AM, David Blevins wrote:
> Ok, finally got some binaries up. Took a few spins but finally got
> something up with good signatures.
>
> The branch to become a tag:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openejb/branches/openejb-3.0.2/
>
> The binaries:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheopenejb-014/
>
> So assuming these binaries pass the TCK, here is my +1 vote.
>
> Vote open for 72 hours or as long as it takes to get some TCK
> numbers against the proposed binaries.
>
>
> -David
>
>
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by Rex Wang <rw...@gmail.com>.
This vote has been open for 5 days, hope it can be closed asap.
-Rex
2010/3/25 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@atosorigin.com>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry if i'm late.
> The release looks good to me.
>
> Here is my +1.
>
> Jean-Louis
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n4.nabble.com/VOTE-OpenEJB-3-0-2-tp1680153p1690394.html
> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Lei Wang (Rex)
rwonly AT apache.org
Re: [VOTE] OpenEJB 3.0.2
Posted by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@atosorigin.com>.
Hi all,
Sorry if i'm late.
The release looks good to me.
Here is my +1.
Jean-Louis
--
View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/VOTE-OpenEJB-3-0-2-tp1680153p1690394.html
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.