Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)

[Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>]

I promote the artifacts according to the instructions on the release-plugin
site, but I did not find them in the centry repository maven2, would they be
synched automatically ? Or any other steps I need to do ?
Thanks !

2010/5/8 Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>

> OK, thanks for all of your support, we pass the vote for Tomcat 7.0.0.1. I
> will promote it to central repository later.
> Three binding vote :
> Rick, Ivan, and Joe Bohn.
>
> 2010/5/8 Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>
>
> Hi, just find that while stopping the server, there is some exceptions
>> about failing to unregister some Tomcat MBeans, I guess that there is still
>> some issues about MBean in Tomcat while I pull the codes. However, I did not
>> think that it is a blocking error. If no objection, I would pass the vote
>> and promote the Tomcat to center repository.
>>
>> 2010/5/6 Rex Wang <rw...@gmail.com>
>>
>> Agree, We can just add a comment in its pom, which records the revision
>>> our external tomcat based on.
>>>
>>> -Rex
>>>
>>> 2010/5/6 Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> I think that our four version numbers could help us, while Tomcat always
>>>> has three version number. In next iteration, we call our version 7.0.0.1,
>>>> which means more changes are merged from Tomcat 7 dev tree ......
>>>>
>>>> 2010/5/5 Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 4, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > +1 (assuming the potential license issue mentioned below is not an
>>>>>> issue)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I was able to build and run the new tomcat image.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The license issue pointed out last time is now resolved but there is
>>>>>> one other potential issue.  I noticed a number of files under jasper-el that
>>>>>> are generated using JJTree & JavaCC and so have the following header but no
>>>>>> Apache license header.  For example:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > /* Generated By:JJTree&JavaCC: Do not edit this line. ELParser.java
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Some other generated files include both a generated header and which
>>>>>> is immediately followed by the Apache license header.  This seems a little
>>>>>> better to me.  However, I see that we have released these without the Apache
>>>>>> header in earlier versions (and Tomcat as well) - so I presume there must be
>>>>>> some valid justification for not including an Apache License header in these
>>>>>> files.  Just pointing it out now in case it really needs some attention and
>>>>>> has just escaped being noticed until now.  Comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've certainly noticed them in the past... Machine generated files do
>>>>>> not require license headers. So, IMO, these files are fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do have a question about the version #. IIUC, we are releasing 7.0.0
>>>>>> prior to the TC community. There may be fixes applied to the Tomcat dev tree
>>>>>> prior to their 7.0 release. So, this release may not exactly match the
>>>>>> functionality of the tomcat release. Is everyone evaluating that in their
>>>>>> decision?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think there are two many zeros in the version number too. How about
>>>>> we use a version number similar to "6.0.18-G678601" like we have in G
>>>>> 2.x builds?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Vamsi
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ivan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lei Wang (Rex)
>>> rwonly AT apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ivan
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ivan
>



-- 
Ivan

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

It takes several hours for the sync to central to happen.  They should be visible on the release repo on apache nexus immediately.

thanks
david jencks

On May 8, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Ivan wrote:

> I promote the artifacts according to the instructions on the release-plugin site, but I did not find them in the centry repository maven2, would they be synched automatically ? Or any other steps I need to do ? 
> Thanks !
> 
> 2010/5/8 Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>
> OK, thanks for all of your support, we pass the vote for Tomcat 7.0.0.1. I will promote it to central repository later.
> Three binding vote :
> Rick, Ivan, and Joe Bohn.
> 
> 2010/5/8 Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>
> 
> Hi, just find that while stopping the server, there is some exceptions about failing to unregister some Tomcat MBeans, I guess that there is still some issues about MBean in Tomcat while I pull the codes. However, I did not think that it is a blocking error. If no objection, I would pass the vote and promote the Tomcat to center repository.
> 
> 2010/5/6 Rex Wang <rw...@gmail.com>
> 
> Agree, We can just add a comment in its pom, which records the revision our external tomcat based on.
> 
> -Rex
> 
> 2010/5/6 Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>
> 
> I think that our four version numbers could help us, while Tomcat always has three version number. In next iteration, we call our version 7.0.0.1, which means more changes are merged from Tomcat 7 dev tree ......
> 
> 2010/5/5 Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On May 4, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> 
> >
> > +1 (assuming the potential license issue mentioned below is not an issue)
> >
> > I was able to build and run the new tomcat image.
> >
> > The license issue pointed out last time is now resolved but there is one other potential issue.  I noticed a number of files under jasper-el that are generated using JJTree & JavaCC and so have the following header but no Apache license header.  For example:
> >
> > /* Generated By:JJTree&JavaCC: Do not edit this line. ELParser.java */
> >
> > Some other generated files include both a generated header and which is immediately followed by the Apache license header.  This seems a little better to me.  However, I see that we have released these without the Apache header in earlier versions (and Tomcat as well) - so I presume there must be some valid justification for not including an Apache License header in these files.  Just pointing it out now in case it really needs some attention and has just escaped being noticed until now.  Comments?
> 
> I've certainly noticed them in the past... Machine generated files do not require license headers. So, IMO, these files are fine.
> 
> I do have a question about the version #. IIUC, we are releasing 7.0.0 prior to the TC community. There may be fixes applied to the Tomcat dev tree prior to their 7.0 release. So, this release may not exactly match the functionality of the tomcat release. Is everyone evaluating that in their decision?
> 
> --kevan
> 
> I think there are two many zeros in the version number too. How about we use a version number similar to "6.0.18-G678601" like we have in G 2.x builds?
> 
> -- 
> Vamsi
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Lei Wang (Rex)
> rwonly AT apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ivan