Tagging JK2_2_0_1?

[Mladen Turk <mt...@mappingsoft.com>]

There has been some major fixes inside the uriMap, uriEnv, apr_socket
and lb that makes the 2_0_0 IMO unusable, and personally I'm ashamed as
a RM that this was a release after all :(.

Since we tagged and released JK2 as beta, seems to me that we could
easily do the same for the 2.0.1, and just pretend that 2.0.0 ewer
existed :)

The question is are we going to wait for a Apache1.3/APR/JNI builds or
just go without that. But before going to the 2_0_1 (What doesn't kill
you makes you stronger ;) could you guys do the testing against current
CVS for all the discussed items.

MT.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Tagging JK2_2_0_1?

[jean-frederic clere <jf...@fujitsu-siemens.com>]

Mladen Turk wrote:
> There has been some major fixes inside the uriMap, uriEnv, apr_socket
> and lb that makes the 2_0_0 IMO unusable, and personally I'm ashamed as
> a RM that this was a release after all :(.

Do not!

That is a lot of work to make a release and all of us will benefit to the fact 
you are now fitted to be the next RM :-))

> 
> Since we tagged and released JK2 as beta, seems to me that we could
> easily do the same for the 2.0.1, and just pretend that 2.0.0 ewer
> existed :)
> 
> The question is are we going to wait for a Apache1.3/APR/JNI builds or
> just go without that. But before going to the 2_0_1 (What doesn't kill
> you makes you stronger ;) could you guys do the testing against current
> CVS for all the discussed items.

Do not hurry too much if you think that 2_0_0 is a very bad we should not loose 
time producing binaries for it. But we must make sure 2_0_1 will be good enough 
for beta.

> 
> MT.
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> 
> 




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Tagging JK2_2_0_1?

[Henri Gomez <hg...@apache.org>]

jean-frederic clere wrote:
> Henri Gomez wrote:
> 
>> Something which should done will be to tag in C sources
>> for use by scandoc (or doxygen).
>>
>> I'll try to do this for jk/native.
>>
>> Comments ?
> 
> 
> That is some work... The scandoc templates were prepared for mod_webapp.
> doxygen is what is most communily used in Apache.
> 

Would you recommand scandoc or doxygen.

Did there is something available which could generate
XML so that we could apply our own styles ?




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Tagging JK2_2_0_1?

[jean-frederic clere <jf...@fujitsu-siemens.com>]

Henri Gomez wrote:
> Something which should done will be to tag in C sources
> for use by scandoc (or doxygen).
> 
> I'll try to do this for jk/native.
> 
> Comments ?

That is some work... The scandoc templates were prepared for mod_webapp.
doxygen is what is most communily used in Apache.

> 
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> 
> 




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Tagging JK2_2_0_1?

[Henri Gomez <hg...@apache.org>]

Something which should done will be to tag in C sources
for use by scandoc (or doxygen).

I'll try to do this for jk/native.

Comments ?


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Tagging JK2_2_0_1?

[Henri Gomez <hg...@apache.org>]

Mladen Turk wrote:
> There has been some major fixes inside the uriMap, uriEnv, apr_socket
> and lb that makes the 2_0_0 IMO unusable, and personally I'm ashamed as
> a RM that this was a release after all :(.
> 
> Since we tagged and released JK2 as beta, seems to me that we could
> easily do the same for the 2.0.1, and just pretend that 2.0.0 ewer
> existed :)

As JF said, we should wait a little more before releasing a 2.0.1
(even beta).

> The question is are we going to wait for a Apache1.3/APR/JNI builds or
> just go without that. But before going to the 2_0_1 (What doesn't kill
> you makes you stronger ;) could you guys do the testing against current
> CVS for all the discussed items.

I think Apache 1.3 / APR / JNI should be resolved before 2.0.1


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>