You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com> on 2006/06/09 18:23:43 UTC
[RTC] : Migrate remote-deploy to m2
Merged remote-deploy-lib with remote-deploy.
Migrated remote-deploy to M2.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2098
Re: [RTC] : Migrate remote-deploy to m2: PLEASE VOTE
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
OK OK I should have pointed out that I applied the patch after we got
to 3 +1's yesterday :-)
Thanks everyone for voting! Now we're up to 6! (assuming I can count
that high :-) (and not meaning 6 factorial)
Guillaume mentioned yesterday:
Btw, would it be easier for the m2 migration, to create a branch,
where the RTC would not apply, and then merge all in trunk ?
I guess this could also apply to some features that requires a
significant number of patches...
For the m2 stuff, I don't think that would help, but rather create a
lot of extra work to sync the branches. I don't think there's a lot
more to commit that will require RTC. There are a couple more
plugins, one being voted on and the other not yet written IIUC.
Pretty much everything else is going to be bug fixes to get things to
work together.
I think we don't have enough experience with RTC yet to judge what
needs to be developed in a sandbox branch and what can be better done
directly on trunk. Both seem to have problems to me: work done in
the sandbox is not so likely to get as much scrutiny as a bunch of
patches applied to trunk, and keeping the sandboxes in sync with
trunk changes could be tricky. That's sort of what we did with 1.1,
and now we have a big merge problem to resurrect the original 1.2
work. Again, I think we need to try RTC longer before we all rush
off to private sandboxes :-)
thanks
david jencks
On Jun 14, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> +1
>
> On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> > +1
>> >
>> > On 6/13/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> This is really a pretty simple minded uncontroversial patch that's
>> >> been sitting around for 3 or 4 days now after 2 quick +1's. I
>> know
>> >> we're trying to get 1.1 out the door but another review would be
>> >> really appreciated to keep the m2 migration moving.
>> >>
>> >> thanks
>> >> david jencks
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I've read through it and support it, but have not tried it.
>> Since I
>> >> > also have mac/linux and trust David J, here's my +1. :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Aaron
>> >> >
>> >> > On 6/10/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> To review, in 1.0 we had problems with web app classloaders
>> that
>> >> >> prevented gbeans being loaded from the web app classloader:
>> as a
>> >> >> workaround for remote-deploy we put the gbean classes for
>> the web app
>> >> >> in remote-deploy-lib. This patch brings everything back
>> into remote-
>> >> >> deploy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've provided instructions for a mac/linux system in the
>> jira issue,
>> >> >> applied the patch, and verified it works in m1 and m2 builds.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Here's my +1 to committing it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> thanks
>> >> >> david jencks
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Sounds good. As per your comments I have attached
>> instructions
>> >> >> in the
>> >> >> > comments and a patch (remote-deploy-v3.patch) that will also
>> >> >> take into
>> >> >> > account m1 build.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Please review and vote.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Cheers
>> >> >> > Prasad
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On 6/9/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> I don't think this is quite ready for a vote yet, and I'm
>> not
>> >> >> >> convinced it requires a vote.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> First, it really should include more of a description of
>> what the
>> >> >> >> purpose of the change is, such as:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Due to bugs in the web app classloader in 1.0, the remote
>> >> >> deploy war
>> >> >> >> was split into 2 modules. Since that classloader bug has
>> been
>> >> >> >> resolved in 1.1 it's time to merge this stuff back into one
>> >> >> module"
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Second, when a patch moves a file, it should not be
>> applied as a
>> >> >> >> patch. The patch might be OK to look at, but we have to
>> >> >> preserve svn
>> >> >> >> history, so whoever is going to "apply the patch" needs
>> to know
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> svn commands that resulted in the patch. Here we need
>> >> >> something like
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Run these svn commands:
>> >> >> >> svn mv modules/remote-deploy-lib/src/java/......java
>> modules/
>> >> >> remote-
>> >> >> >> deploy/src/java/....
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> svn rm modules/remote-deploy-lib
>> >> >> >> "
>> >> >> >> Other adjustments to make the build work again should be
>> in a
>> >> >> patch
>> >> >> >> that does not include the effects of the svn commands.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thirdly I don't think this patch fixes the m1 build....
>> >> >> unfortunately
>> >> >> >> we can't throw it out yet.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The reason I don't think this requires a vote is that it
>> does not
>> >> >> >> change any java code and is part of the bug fix to the
>> web app
>> >> >> >> classloading. However I think since you proposed a vote
>> and we
>> >> >> >> haven't had much practice voting yet it would be a good
>> idea to go
>> >> >> >> through the vote process on this small uncontroversial
>> change.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Many thanks
>> >> >> >> david jencks
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Merged remote-deploy-lib with remote-deploy.
>> >> >> >> > Migrated remote-deploy to M2.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2098
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [RTC] : Migrate remote-deploy to m2: PLEASE VOTE
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> Hiram Chirino wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On 6/13/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> This is really a pretty simple minded uncontroversial patch that's
> >> been sitting around for 3 or 4 days now after 2 quick +1's. I know
> >> we're trying to get 1.1 out the door but another review would be
> >> really appreciated to keep the m2 migration moving.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> david jencks
> >>
> >> On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >>
> >> > I've read through it and support it, but have not tried it. Since I
> >> > also have mac/linux and trust David J, here's my +1. :)
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Aaron
> >> >
> >> > On 6/10/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> To review, in 1.0 we had problems with web app classloaders that
> >> >> prevented gbeans being loaded from the web app classloader: as a
> >> >> workaround for remote-deploy we put the gbean classes for the web app
> >> >> in remote-deploy-lib. This patch brings everything back into remote-
> >> >> deploy.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've provided instructions for a mac/linux system in the jira issue,
> >> >> applied the patch, and verified it works in m1 and m2 builds.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's my +1 to committing it.
> >> >>
> >> >> thanks
> >> >> david jencks
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Sounds good. As per your comments I have attached instructions
> >> >> in the
> >> >> > comments and a patch (remote-deploy-v3.patch) that will also
> >> >> take into
> >> >> > account m1 build.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Please review and vote.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cheers
> >> >> > Prasad
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 6/9/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> I don't think this is quite ready for a vote yet, and I'm not
> >> >> >> convinced it requires a vote.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> First, it really should include more of a description of what the
> >> >> >> purpose of the change is, such as:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Due to bugs in the web app classloader in 1.0, the remote
> >> >> deploy war
> >> >> >> was split into 2 modules. Since that classloader bug has been
> >> >> >> resolved in 1.1 it's time to merge this stuff back into one
> >> >> module"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Second, when a patch moves a file, it should not be applied as a
> >> >> >> patch. The patch might be OK to look at, but we have to
> >> >> preserve svn
> >> >> >> history, so whoever is going to "apply the patch" needs to know
> >> >> the
> >> >> >> svn commands that resulted in the patch. Here we need
> >> >> something like
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Run these svn commands:
> >> >> >> svn mv modules/remote-deploy-lib/src/java/......java modules/
> >> >> remote-
> >> >> >> deploy/src/java/....
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> svn rm modules/remote-deploy-lib
> >> >> >> "
> >> >> >> Other adjustments to make the build work again should be in a
> >> >> patch
> >> >> >> that does not include the effects of the svn commands.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thirdly I don't think this patch fixes the m1 build....
> >> >> unfortunately
> >> >> >> we can't throw it out yet.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The reason I don't think this requires a vote is that it does not
> >> >> >> change any java code and is part of the bug fix to the web app
> >> >> >> classloading. However I think since you proposed a vote and we
> >> >> >> haven't had much practice voting yet it would be a good idea to go
> >> >> >> through the vote process on this small uncontroversial change.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Many thanks
> >> >> >> david jencks
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Merged remote-deploy-lib with remote-deploy.
> >> >> >> > Migrated remote-deploy to M2.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2098
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [RTC] : Migrate remote-deploy to m2: PLEASE VOTE
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
+1
Hiram Chirino wrote:
> +1
>
> On 6/13/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This is really a pretty simple minded uncontroversial patch that's
>> been sitting around for 3 or 4 days now after 2 quick +1's. I know
>> we're trying to get 1.1 out the door but another review would be
>> really appreciated to keep the m2 migration moving.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>> > I've read through it and support it, but have not tried it. Since I
>> > also have mac/linux and trust David J, here's my +1. :)
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Aaron
>> >
>> > On 6/10/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> To review, in 1.0 we had problems with web app classloaders that
>> >> prevented gbeans being loaded from the web app classloader: as a
>> >> workaround for remote-deploy we put the gbean classes for the web app
>> >> in remote-deploy-lib. This patch brings everything back into remote-
>> >> deploy.
>> >>
>> >> I've provided instructions for a mac/linux system in the jira issue,
>> >> applied the patch, and verified it works in m1 and m2 builds.
>> >>
>> >> Here's my +1 to committing it.
>> >>
>> >> thanks
>> >> david jencks
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Sounds good. As per your comments I have attached instructions
>> >> in the
>> >> > comments and a patch (remote-deploy-v3.patch) that will also
>> >> take into
>> >> > account m1 build.
>> >> >
>> >> > Please review and vote.
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers
>> >> > Prasad
>> >> >
>> >> > On 6/9/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> I don't think this is quite ready for a vote yet, and I'm not
>> >> >> convinced it requires a vote.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> First, it really should include more of a description of what the
>> >> >> purpose of the change is, such as:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Due to bugs in the web app classloader in 1.0, the remote
>> >> deploy war
>> >> >> was split into 2 modules. Since that classloader bug has been
>> >> >> resolved in 1.1 it's time to merge this stuff back into one
>> >> module"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Second, when a patch moves a file, it should not be applied as a
>> >> >> patch. The patch might be OK to look at, but we have to
>> >> preserve svn
>> >> >> history, so whoever is going to "apply the patch" needs to know
>> >> the
>> >> >> svn commands that resulted in the patch. Here we need
>> >> something like
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Run these svn commands:
>> >> >> svn mv modules/remote-deploy-lib/src/java/......java modules/
>> >> remote-
>> >> >> deploy/src/java/....
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> svn rm modules/remote-deploy-lib
>> >> >> "
>> >> >> Other adjustments to make the build work again should be in a
>> >> patch
>> >> >> that does not include the effects of the svn commands.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thirdly I don't think this patch fixes the m1 build....
>> >> unfortunately
>> >> >> we can't throw it out yet.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The reason I don't think this requires a vote is that it does not
>> >> >> change any java code and is part of the bug fix to the web app
>> >> >> classloading. However I think since you proposed a vote and we
>> >> >> haven't had much practice voting yet it would be a good idea to go
>> >> >> through the vote process on this small uncontroversial change.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Many thanks
>> >> >> david jencks
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Merged remote-deploy-lib with remote-deploy.
>> >> >> > Migrated remote-deploy to M2.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2098
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [RTC] : Migrate remote-deploy to m2: PLEASE VOTE
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
+1
On 6/13/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is really a pretty simple minded uncontroversial patch that's
> been sitting around for 3 or 4 days now after 2 quick +1's. I know
> we're trying to get 1.1 out the door but another review would be
> really appreciated to keep the m2 migration moving.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> > I've read through it and support it, but have not tried it. Since I
> > also have mac/linux and trust David J, here's my +1. :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aaron
> >
> > On 6/10/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> To review, in 1.0 we had problems with web app classloaders that
> >> prevented gbeans being loaded from the web app classloader: as a
> >> workaround for remote-deploy we put the gbean classes for the web app
> >> in remote-deploy-lib. This patch brings everything back into remote-
> >> deploy.
> >>
> >> I've provided instructions for a mac/linux system in the jira issue,
> >> applied the patch, and verified it works in m1 and m2 builds.
> >>
> >> Here's my +1 to committing it.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> david jencks
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> >>
> >> > Sounds good. As per your comments I have attached instructions
> >> in the
> >> > comments and a patch (remote-deploy-v3.patch) that will also
> >> take into
> >> > account m1 build.
> >> >
> >> > Please review and vote.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers
> >> > Prasad
> >> >
> >> > On 6/9/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> I don't think this is quite ready for a vote yet, and I'm not
> >> >> convinced it requires a vote.
> >> >>
> >> >> First, it really should include more of a description of what the
> >> >> purpose of the change is, such as:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Due to bugs in the web app classloader in 1.0, the remote
> >> deploy war
> >> >> was split into 2 modules. Since that classloader bug has been
> >> >> resolved in 1.1 it's time to merge this stuff back into one
> >> module"
> >> >>
> >> >> Second, when a patch moves a file, it should not be applied as a
> >> >> patch. The patch might be OK to look at, but we have to
> >> preserve svn
> >> >> history, so whoever is going to "apply the patch" needs to know
> >> the
> >> >> svn commands that resulted in the patch. Here we need
> >> something like
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Run these svn commands:
> >> >> svn mv modules/remote-deploy-lib/src/java/......java modules/
> >> remote-
> >> >> deploy/src/java/....
> >> >> ...
> >> >> svn rm modules/remote-deploy-lib
> >> >> "
> >> >> Other adjustments to make the build work again should be in a
> >> patch
> >> >> that does not include the effects of the svn commands.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thirdly I don't think this patch fixes the m1 build....
> >> unfortunately
> >> >> we can't throw it out yet.
> >> >>
> >> >> The reason I don't think this requires a vote is that it does not
> >> >> change any java code and is part of the bug fix to the web app
> >> >> classloading. However I think since you proposed a vote and we
> >> >> haven't had much practice voting yet it would be a good idea to go
> >> >> through the vote process on this small uncontroversial change.
> >> >>
> >> >> Many thanks
> >> >> david jencks
> >> >>
> >> >> On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Merged remote-deploy-lib with remote-deploy.
> >> >> > Migrated remote-deploy to M2.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2098
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Re: [RTC] : Migrate remote-deploy to m2: PLEASE VOTE
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
This is really a pretty simple minded uncontroversial patch that's
been sitting around for 3 or 4 days now after 2 quick +1's. I know
we're trying to get 1.1 out the door but another review would be
really appreciated to keep the m2 migration moving.
thanks
david jencks
On Jun 10, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I've read through it and support it, but have not tried it. Since I
> also have mac/linux and trust David J, here's my +1. :)
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 6/10/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> To review, in 1.0 we had problems with web app classloaders that
>> prevented gbeans being loaded from the web app classloader: as a
>> workaround for remote-deploy we put the gbean classes for the web app
>> in remote-deploy-lib. This patch brings everything back into remote-
>> deploy.
>>
>> I've provided instructions for a mac/linux system in the jira issue,
>> applied the patch, and verified it works in m1 and m2 builds.
>>
>> Here's my +1 to committing it.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>>
>> > Sounds good. As per your comments I have attached instructions
>> in the
>> > comments and a patch (remote-deploy-v3.patch) that will also
>> take into
>> > account m1 build.
>> >
>> > Please review and vote.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Prasad
>> >
>> > On 6/9/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> I don't think this is quite ready for a vote yet, and I'm not
>> >> convinced it requires a vote.
>> >>
>> >> First, it really should include more of a description of what the
>> >> purpose of the change is, such as:
>> >>
>> >> "Due to bugs in the web app classloader in 1.0, the remote
>> deploy war
>> >> was split into 2 modules. Since that classloader bug has been
>> >> resolved in 1.1 it's time to merge this stuff back into one
>> module"
>> >>
>> >> Second, when a patch moves a file, it should not be applied as a
>> >> patch. The patch might be OK to look at, but we have to
>> preserve svn
>> >> history, so whoever is going to "apply the patch" needs to know
>> the
>> >> svn commands that resulted in the patch. Here we need
>> something like
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Run these svn commands:
>> >> svn mv modules/remote-deploy-lib/src/java/......java modules/
>> remote-
>> >> deploy/src/java/....
>> >> ...
>> >> svn rm modules/remote-deploy-lib
>> >> "
>> >> Other adjustments to make the build work again should be in a
>> patch
>> >> that does not include the effects of the svn commands.
>> >>
>> >> Thirdly I don't think this patch fixes the m1 build....
>> unfortunately
>> >> we can't throw it out yet.
>> >>
>> >> The reason I don't think this requires a vote is that it does not
>> >> change any java code and is part of the bug fix to the web app
>> >> classloading. However I think since you proposed a vote and we
>> >> haven't had much practice voting yet it would be a good idea to go
>> >> through the vote process on this small uncontroversial change.
>> >>
>> >> Many thanks
>> >> david jencks
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Merged remote-deploy-lib with remote-deploy.
>> >> > Migrated remote-deploy to M2.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2098
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
Re: [RTC] : Migrate remote-deploy to m2
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I've read through it and support it, but have not tried it. Since I
also have mac/linux and trust David J, here's my +1. :)
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/10/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> To review, in 1.0 we had problems with web app classloaders that
> prevented gbeans being loaded from the web app classloader: as a
> workaround for remote-deploy we put the gbean classes for the web app
> in remote-deploy-lib. This patch brings everything back into remote-
> deploy.
>
> I've provided instructions for a mac/linux system in the jira issue,
> applied the patch, and verified it works in m1 and m2 builds.
>
> Here's my +1 to committing it.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>
> > Sounds good. As per your comments I have attached instructions in the
> > comments and a patch (remote-deploy-v3.patch) that will also take into
> > account m1 build.
> >
> > Please review and vote.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Prasad
> >
> > On 6/9/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I don't think this is quite ready for a vote yet, and I'm not
> >> convinced it requires a vote.
> >>
> >> First, it really should include more of a description of what the
> >> purpose of the change is, such as:
> >>
> >> "Due to bugs in the web app classloader in 1.0, the remote deploy war
> >> was split into 2 modules. Since that classloader bug has been
> >> resolved in 1.1 it's time to merge this stuff back into one module"
> >>
> >> Second, when a patch moves a file, it should not be applied as a
> >> patch. The patch might be OK to look at, but we have to preserve svn
> >> history, so whoever is going to "apply the patch" needs to know the
> >> svn commands that resulted in the patch. Here we need something like
> >>
> >>
> >> "Run these svn commands:
> >> svn mv modules/remote-deploy-lib/src/java/......java modules/remote-
> >> deploy/src/java/....
> >> ...
> >> svn rm modules/remote-deploy-lib
> >> "
> >> Other adjustments to make the build work again should be in a patch
> >> that does not include the effects of the svn commands.
> >>
> >> Thirdly I don't think this patch fixes the m1 build.... unfortunately
> >> we can't throw it out yet.
> >>
> >> The reason I don't think this requires a vote is that it does not
> >> change any java code and is part of the bug fix to the web app
> >> classloading. However I think since you proposed a vote and we
> >> haven't had much practice voting yet it would be a good idea to go
> >> through the vote process on this small uncontroversial change.
> >>
> >> Many thanks
> >> david jencks
> >>
> >> On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> >>
> >> > Merged remote-deploy-lib with remote-deploy.
> >> > Migrated remote-deploy to M2.
> >> >
> >> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2098
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: [RTC] : Migrate remote-deploy to m2
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
To review, in 1.0 we had problems with web app classloaders that
prevented gbeans being loaded from the web app classloader: as a
workaround for remote-deploy we put the gbean classes for the web app
in remote-deploy-lib. This patch brings everything back into remote-
deploy.
I've provided instructions for a mac/linux system in the jira issue,
applied the patch, and verified it works in m1 and m2 builds.
Here's my +1 to committing it.
thanks
david jencks
On Jun 9, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> Sounds good. As per your comments I have attached instructions in the
> comments and a patch (remote-deploy-v3.patch) that will also take into
> account m1 build.
>
> Please review and vote.
>
> Cheers
> Prasad
>
> On 6/9/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I don't think this is quite ready for a vote yet, and I'm not
>> convinced it requires a vote.
>>
>> First, it really should include more of a description of what the
>> purpose of the change is, such as:
>>
>> "Due to bugs in the web app classloader in 1.0, the remote deploy war
>> was split into 2 modules. Since that classloader bug has been
>> resolved in 1.1 it's time to merge this stuff back into one module"
>>
>> Second, when a patch moves a file, it should not be applied as a
>> patch. The patch might be OK to look at, but we have to preserve svn
>> history, so whoever is going to "apply the patch" needs to know the
>> svn commands that resulted in the patch. Here we need something like
>>
>>
>> "Run these svn commands:
>> svn mv modules/remote-deploy-lib/src/java/......java modules/remote-
>> deploy/src/java/....
>> ...
>> svn rm modules/remote-deploy-lib
>> "
>> Other adjustments to make the build work again should be in a patch
>> that does not include the effects of the svn commands.
>>
>> Thirdly I don't think this patch fixes the m1 build.... unfortunately
>> we can't throw it out yet.
>>
>> The reason I don't think this requires a vote is that it does not
>> change any java code and is part of the bug fix to the web app
>> classloading. However I think since you proposed a vote and we
>> haven't had much practice voting yet it would be a good idea to go
>> through the vote process on this small uncontroversial change.
>>
>> Many thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>>
>> > Merged remote-deploy-lib with remote-deploy.
>> > Migrated remote-deploy to M2.
>> >
>> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2098
>>
>>
Re: [RTC] : Migrate remote-deploy to m2
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good. As per your comments I have attached instructions in the
comments and a patch (remote-deploy-v3.patch) that will also take into
account m1 build.
Please review and vote.
Cheers
Prasad
On 6/9/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't think this is quite ready for a vote yet, and I'm not
> convinced it requires a vote.
>
> First, it really should include more of a description of what the
> purpose of the change is, such as:
>
> "Due to bugs in the web app classloader in 1.0, the remote deploy war
> was split into 2 modules. Since that classloader bug has been
> resolved in 1.1 it's time to merge this stuff back into one module"
>
> Second, when a patch moves a file, it should not be applied as a
> patch. The patch might be OK to look at, but we have to preserve svn
> history, so whoever is going to "apply the patch" needs to know the
> svn commands that resulted in the patch. Here we need something like
>
>
> "Run these svn commands:
> svn mv modules/remote-deploy-lib/src/java/......java modules/remote-
> deploy/src/java/....
> ...
> svn rm modules/remote-deploy-lib
> "
> Other adjustments to make the build work again should be in a patch
> that does not include the effects of the svn commands.
>
> Thirdly I don't think this patch fixes the m1 build.... unfortunately
> we can't throw it out yet.
>
> The reason I don't think this requires a vote is that it does not
> change any java code and is part of the bug fix to the web app
> classloading. However I think since you proposed a vote and we
> haven't had much practice voting yet it would be a good idea to go
> through the vote process on this small uncontroversial change.
>
> Many thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>
> > Merged remote-deploy-lib with remote-deploy.
> > Migrated remote-deploy to M2.
> >
> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2098
>
>
Re: [RTC] : Migrate remote-deploy to m2
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I don't think this is quite ready for a vote yet, and I'm not
convinced it requires a vote.
First, it really should include more of a description of what the
purpose of the change is, such as:
"Due to bugs in the web app classloader in 1.0, the remote deploy war
was split into 2 modules. Since that classloader bug has been
resolved in 1.1 it's time to merge this stuff back into one module"
Second, when a patch moves a file, it should not be applied as a
patch. The patch might be OK to look at, but we have to preserve svn
history, so whoever is going to "apply the patch" needs to know the
svn commands that resulted in the patch. Here we need something like
"Run these svn commands:
svn mv modules/remote-deploy-lib/src/java/......java modules/remote-
deploy/src/java/....
...
svn rm modules/remote-deploy-lib
"
Other adjustments to make the build work again should be in a patch
that does not include the effects of the svn commands.
Thirdly I don't think this patch fixes the m1 build.... unfortunately
we can't throw it out yet.
The reason I don't think this requires a vote is that it does not
change any java code and is part of the bug fix to the web app
classloading. However I think since you proposed a vote and we
haven't had much practice voting yet it would be a good idea to go
through the vote process on this small uncontroversial change.
Many thanks
david jencks
On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> Merged remote-deploy-lib with remote-deploy.
> Migrated remote-deploy to M2.
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2098
Re: [RTC] : Migrate remote-deploy to m2
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gu...@worldonline.fr>.
+1, seems fine to me.
Btw, would it be easier for the m2 migration, to create a branch, where
the RTC would not apply, and then merge all in trunk ?
I guess this could also apply to some features that requires a
significant number of patches...
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> Merged remote-deploy-lib with remote-deploy.
> Migrated remote-deploy to M2.
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2098
>
>