You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> on 2012/06/17 03:10:53 UTC
Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
All,
Tried to update the status page for G 3.0.0 release, please review them and
comment on
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+3.0.0+Release+Status
--
Thanks!
Regards, Forrest
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>.
Check the updated release status page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+3.0.0+Release+Status
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Shawn Jiang <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I prefer the previous template[1]. I guess the content in the original
> G 3.0.0 can't reflect what we've done accurately because we have not
> updated it for quite a time.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.8+Release+Status
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Tried to update the status page for G 3.0.0 release, please review them
>> and comment on
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+3.0.0+Release+Status
>>
>> --
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Regards, Forrest
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Shawn
>
--
Thanks!
Regards, Forrest
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Shawn Jiang <ge...@gmail.com>.
I prefer the previous template[1]. I guess the content in the original
G 3.0.0 can't reflect what we've done accurately because we have not
updated it for quite a time.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+2.1.8+Release+Status
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> Tried to update the status page for G 3.0.0 release, please review them
> and comment on
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+3.0.0+Release+Status
>
> --
> Thanks!
>
> Regards, Forrest
>
>
--
Shawn
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 26, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Forrest Xia wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Forrest Xia wrote:
>
> > 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??
>
> We certainly can't record jetty as a certified release. Nor does there appear to be sufficient energy in the community to certify in the near future.
>
> Can you be a bit more explicit in what you're proposing?
>
> For beta-1, Jetty was released and marked as a non-certified release.
>
> Are you proposing to:
>
> 1) release tomcat/jetty source and binaries, but mark jetty binaries as non-certified,
> 2) remove jetty from the build, but keep in source tree and only release tomcat binaries
> #2 would be what I want to proceed
> 3) remove jetty from the source tree, and only release tomcat-based source and binaries
Forrest, in the future, I encourage you to include the user community in these types of major decisions. I also encourage you to bring discussions like this to a close, before acting upon them. By this, I mean -- say that you believe we've reached consensus and that you intend to generate a release based on this...
--kevan
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Forrest Xia wrote:
>
> > 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??
>
> We certainly can't record jetty as a certified release. Nor does there
> appear to be sufficient energy in the community to certify in the near
> future.
>
> Can you be a bit more explicit in what you're proposing?
>
> For beta-1, Jetty was released and marked as a non-certified release.
>
> Are you proposing to:
>
> 1) release tomcat/jetty source and binaries, but mark jetty binaries as
> non-certified,
> 2) remove jetty from the build, but keep in source tree and only release
> tomcat binaries
>
#2 would be what I want to proceed
> 3) remove jetty from the source tree, and only release tomcat-based source
> and binaries
>
> --kevan
--
Thanks!
Regards, Forrest
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Forrest Xia wrote:
> 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??
We certainly can't record jetty as a certified release. Nor does there appear to be sufficient energy in the community to certify in the near future.
Can you be a bit more explicit in what you're proposing?
For beta-1, Jetty was released and marked as a non-certified release.
Are you proposing to:
1) release tomcat/jetty source and binaries, but mark jetty binaries as non-certified,
2) remove jetty from the build, but keep in source tree and only release tomcat binaries
3) remove jetty from the source tree, and only release tomcat-based source and binaries
--kevan
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by viola lu <vi...@gmail.com>.
Drop jetty release makes sense. +1 from my side.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Any more thoughts on droping jetty assembly from 3.0.0 release? or I will
> go ahead to make the change and roll out 3.0.0 release...
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Shawn Jiang <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 to drop Jetty release from 3.0.0 release for now.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <fo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@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 <fo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@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 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shawn
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks!
>
> Regards, Forrest
>
>
--
viola
Apache Geronimo
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Rex Wang <rw...@gmail.com>.
+1 to drop the jetty assembly. Looks like the community is not that keen to
jetty tck.
rex
2012/6/26 Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>
> Any more thoughts on droping jetty assembly from 3.0.0 release? or I will
> go ahead to make the change and roll out 3.0.0 release...
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Shawn Jiang <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 to drop Jetty release from 3.0.0 release for now.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <fo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@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 <fo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@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 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shawn
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks!
>
> Regards, Forrest
>
>
--
Lei Wang (Rex)
rwonly AT apache.org
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>.
Any more thoughts on droping jetty assembly from 3.0.0 release? or I will
go ahead to make the change and roll out 3.0.0 release...
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Shawn Jiang <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to drop Jetty release from 3.0.0 release for now.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@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 <fo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@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 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Shawn
>
--
Thanks!
Regards, Forrest
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Shawn Jiang <ge...@gmail.com>.
+1 to drop Jetty release from 3.0.0 release for now.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@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 <fo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@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 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
>
>
--
Shawn
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>.
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 <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@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 <fo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@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 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
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@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 <fo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@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 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
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 22, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Forrest Xia wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@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 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.
--kevan
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@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 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
https://phoebe.apache.org:9443/jobs/artifacts/201/2185537/Geronimo_3_0_jetty_Test_Results/non-passing-overview.html
>
>>> Jarek
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > All,
>>> >
>>> > Tried to update the status page for G 3.0.0 release, please review
>>> them and
>>> > comment on
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+3.0.0+Release+Status
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Thanks!
>>> >
>>> > Regards, Forrest
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Regards, Forrest
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks!
>
> Regards, Forrest
>
>
--
Thanks!
Regards, Forrest
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@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 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.
>
>> Jarek
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > All,
>> >
>> > Tried to update the status page for G 3.0.0 release, please review them
>> and
>> > comment on
>> >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+3.0.0+Release+Status
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > Regards, Forrest
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks!
>
> Regards, Forrest
>
>
--
Thanks!
Regards, Forrest
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Jarek Gawor <jg...@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 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.
>
> Jarek
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Tried to update the status page for G 3.0.0 release, please review them
> and
> > comment on
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+3.0.0+Release+Status
> >
> > --
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Regards, Forrest
> >
>
--
Thanks!
Regards, Forrest
Re: Review status of G 3.0.0 release goals
Posted by Jarek Gawor <jg...@gmail.com>.
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.
Jarek
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Forrest Xia <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> Tried to update the status page for G 3.0.0 release, please review them and
> comment on
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxPMGT/Geronimo+3.0.0+Release+Status
>
> --
> Thanks!
>
> Regards, Forrest
>