You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Ivan <xh...@gmail.com> on 2010/05/04 11:10:33 UTC
[VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Please vote for Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0
Vote will be open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
Staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-002/
Source repo:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/tags/tomcat-parent-7.0.0.0/
--
I have run the servlet/JSP TCK, at least, it does not bring new failures.
The codes until rev 940711 are merged from Tomcat 7.0 trunk.
About the java source codes with license issues found in the last vote, they
are removed in the current code base from Geronimo side, as they are not
required.
--
Ivan
Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Posted by Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>.
forget my +1 :-)
2010/5/5 Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>
>
> +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?
>
> Here is a list of the files that were flagged:
> /jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/ELParser.java
> /jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/ELParserConstants.java
> /jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/ELParserTokenManager.java
> /jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/ELParserTreeConstants.java
> /jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/JJTELParserState.java
> /jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/ParseException.java
> /jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/SimpleCharStream.java
> /jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/Token.java
> /jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/TokenMgrError.java
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> On 5/4/10 5:10 AM, Ivan wrote:
>
>> Please vote for Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0
>>
>> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1 approve
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>>
>> Staging repo:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-002/
>>
>> Source repo:
>>
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/tags/tomcat-parent-7.0.0.0/
>>
>> --
>>
>> I have run the servlet/JSP TCK, at least, it does not bring new failures.
>>
>> The codes until rev 940711 are merged from Tomcat 7.0 trunk.
>>
>> About the java source codes with license issues found in the last vote,
>> they are removed in the current code base from Geronimo side, as they
>> are not required.
>> --
>> Ivan
>>
>
>
--
Ivan
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Posted by 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
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0
(Second Try)
Posted by 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)
Posted by Ivan <xh...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, Kevan !
2010/5/10 Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
>
> On May 8, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Ivan wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Ivan,
> IMO, calling this vote was premature. No strict guidelines were broken, so
> the vote stands. However, this is not how I would like to see votes run in
> the Geronimo community. Please don't repeat. And I'll note that I would
> expect the Geronimo community do do a better job of monitoring... Things
> that I'm noting:
>
> 1) A bare minimum of 3 PMC votes
> 2) There were several comments/questions on this release. There were
> answers/responses, but no attempt to see if the questions were resolved
> satisfactorily.
> 3) You identified a functional problem with the release, waited 12 hours
> and called the vote. IMO, this did not provide much time for additional
> review or comments. No one said "I agree".
> 4) The vote ran for 4 days (minimum is 3). However, given the above
> conditions, IMO the vote should have run for a longer time.
>
> --kevan
--
Ivan
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 8, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Ivan wrote:
> 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.
Ivan,
IMO, calling this vote was premature. No strict guidelines were broken, so the vote stands. However, this is not how I would like to see votes run in the Geronimo community. Please don't repeat. And I'll note that I would expect the Geronimo community do do a better job of monitoring... Things that I'm noting:
1) A bare minimum of 3 PMC votes
2) There were several comments/questions on this release. There were answers/responses, but no attempt to see if the questions were resolved satisfactorily.
3) You identified a functional problem with the release, waited 12 hours and called the vote. IMO, this did not provide much time for additional review or comments. No one said "I agree".
4) The vote ran for 4 days (minimum is 3). However, given the above conditions, IMO the vote should have run for a longer time.
--kevan
[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second
Try)
Posted by 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
Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Posted by 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
Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Posted by 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
Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
IIRC I came up with the 4 digits and I was thinking exactly this, we can release many ports of a given tomcat release this way. Having the same number of digits as tomcat won't work. If they used 4 we'd be in trouble :-)
thanks
david jencks
On May 5, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Ivan wrote:
> 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
Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Posted by 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
Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Posted by 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
Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
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
Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
+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?
Here is a list of the files that were flagged:
/jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/ELParser.java
/jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/ELParserConstants.java
/jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/ELParserTokenManager.java
/jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/ELParserTreeConstants.java
/jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/JJTELParserState.java
/jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/ParseException.java
/jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/SimpleCharStream.java
/jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/Token.java
/jasper-el/src/main/java/org/apache/el/parser/TokenMgrError.java
Joe
On 5/4/10 5:10 AM, Ivan wrote:
> Please vote for Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
>
> Staging repo:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-002/
>
> Source repo:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/tags/tomcat-parent-7.0.0.0/
>
> --
>
> I have run the servlet/JSP TCK, at least, it does not bring new failures.
>
> The codes until rev 940711 are merged from Tomcat 7.0 trunk.
>
> About the java source codes with license issues found in the last vote,
> they are removed in the current code base from Geronimo side, as they
> are not required.
> --
> Ivan
Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0 (Second Try)
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
Everything built correctly and I don't see any obvious license or header
problems this time.
+1
On 5/4/2010 5:10 AM, Ivan wrote:
> Please vote for Geronimo Customized Tomcat 7.0.0.0
>
> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
>
> Staging repo:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-002/
>
> Source repo:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/external/tags/tomcat-parent-7.0.0.0/
>
> --
>
> I have run the servlet/JSP TCK, at least, it does not bring new failures.
>
> The codes until rev 940711 are merged from Tomcat 7.0 trunk.
>
> About the java source codes with license issues found in the last
> vote, they are removed in the current code base from Geronimo side, as
> they are not required.
> --
> Ivan