You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> on 2005/07/17 21:47:35 UTC
M4 Status
I believe Jeff is working on separate plans for Tomcat and Jetty
builds, so we can produce two separate distributions as people seemed to
prefer.
David B asked me to try to get the IzPack Maven target working,
though in truth I'm happy to run it from the command line to produce the
installer for this release. The installer is currently working though we
will likely need to adjust the install plans once the Tomcat/Jetty change
is in.
Are there any other issues we know about with M4? I hear there
may be some web services stuff but I'm not sure where that stands.
It would be nice to come up with a quick checklist so we can get
these things in and commence with TCK testing before we push it out the
door.
Thanks,
Aaron
Re: M4 Status
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
I'm with Alan.
-David
(excuse the incorrect quoting; mutt & elinks don't like Alan's blackberry)
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 07:53:58AM +0800, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/18/2005 7:46 AM:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>
> I think that this should wait for M5 or we recut M4. Tossing in new
> features into a QA branch is a not so good idea.
>
>
> You're effectively moving to ignore the result of a previous
> discussion, where a number of people voted to distribute two identical M4
> releases, one with Jetty, and one with Tomcat. There is no reasonable way
> to do that without Jeff's change.
>
>
> Opps. I didn't realize that it would require code changes.
>
> I don't think it's necessary to recut the branch to merge this in.
> It's a few simple svn merge commands.
>
>
> I think that the notion that adding new features into a QA branch is a bad
> idea stands, regardless of how simple the changes are and how simple it is
> to merge them. It's simply bad form.
>
> If we do want to change the decision to distribute only a Jetty
> build of M4, then we can leave this change out, but we need more people's
> opinions (particularly the people who voted for two separate but equal M4
> releases). I don't care a lot either way.
>
>
> I'm not opposed to the what and why. I am opposed to the how.
>
> Regards,
> Alan
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:90: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:90: parse error
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:97: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:97: parse error
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:754: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:754: parse error
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:758: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:758: parse error
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:762: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:762: parse error
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:908: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:908: parse error
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:912: unknown option
> /etc/elinks/elinks.conf:912: parse error
>
Re: M4 Status
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/18/2005 7:46 AM:
>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>
>>I think that this should wait for M5 or we recut M4. Tossing in new
>>features into a QA branch is a not so good idea.
>>
>>
>
> You're effectively moving to ignore the result of a previous
>discussion, where a number of people voted to distribute two identical M4
>releases, one with Jetty, and one with Tomcat. There is no reasonable way
>to do that without Jeff's change.
>
>
Opps. I didn't realize that it would require code changes.
> I don't think it's necessary to recut the branch to merge this in.
>It's a few simple svn merge commands.
>
>
I think that the notion that adding new features into a QA branch is a
bad idea stands, regardless of how simple the changes are and how simple
it is to merge them. It's simply bad form.
> If we do want to change the decision to distribute only a Jetty
>build of M4, then we can leave this change out, but we need more people's
>opinions (particularly the people who voted for two separate but equal M4
>releases). I don't care a lot either way.
>
>
I'm not opposed to the what and why. I am opposed to the how.
Regards,
Alan
Re: M4 Status
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Being selfish, I would like to see it in M4, and I agree it was part of
the concensus of the 2 builds.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>>I think that this should wait for M5 or we recut M4. Tossing in new
>>features into a QA branch is a not so good idea.
>
>
> You're effectively moving to ignore the result of a previous
> discussion, where a number of people voted to distribute two identical M4
> releases, one with Jetty, and one with Tomcat. There is no reasonable way
> to do that without Jeff's change.
>
> I don't think it's necessary to recut the branch to merge this in.
> It's a few simple svn merge commands.
>
> If we do want to change the decision to distribute only a Jetty
> build of M4, then we can leave this change out, but we need more people's
> opinions (particularly the people who voted for two separate but equal M4
> releases). I don't care a lot either way.
>
> Aaron
Re: M4 Status
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I think that this should wait for M5 or we recut M4. Tossing in new
> features into a QA branch is a not so good idea.
You're effectively moving to ignore the result of a previous
discussion, where a number of people voted to distribute two identical M4
releases, one with Jetty, and one with Tomcat. There is no reasonable way
to do that without Jeff's change.
I don't think it's necessary to recut the branch to merge this in.
It's a few simple svn merge commands.
If we do want to change the decision to distribute only a Jetty
build of M4, then we can leave this change out, but we need more people's
opinions (particularly the people who voted for two separate but equal M4
releases). I don't care a lot either way.
Aaron
Re: M4 Status
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Jeff Genender wrote, On 7/18/2005 6:04 AM:
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>> I believe Jeff is working on separate plans for Tomcat and Jetty
>> builds, so we can produce two separate distributions as people seemed
>> to prefer.
>
>
> Its done...I am waiting on SVN at this point...
I think that this should wait for M5 or we recut M4. Tossing in new
features into a QA branch is a not so good idea.
Regards,
Alan
Re: M4 Status
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I believe Jeff is working on separate plans for Tomcat and Jetty
> builds, so we can produce two separate distributions as people seemed to
> prefer.
Its done...I am waiting on SVN at this point...
Jeff
Re: M4 Status
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 7/18/2005 3:47 AM:
> It would be nice to come up with a quick checklist so we can get
>these things in and commence with TCK testing before we push it out the
>door.
>
>
I think that some people are already testing the non-web portions.
Regards,
Alan