You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> on 2008/04/14 20:20:27 UTC
branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
I'd like to branch later today in preparation for a 2.1.1 release
(branches/2.1.1) and update branches/2.1 to 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT. Any
objections? Minor changes can still be made in branches/2.1.1 while we
make preparations for a release candidate.
AFAIK the only remaining changes are version updates in the root pom for:
OpenEJB 3.0
- Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David Blevins are
you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
ActiveMQ 4.1.2
- Passed vote ... not yet available in M2 repo. David Jencks are
you planning to update this in Geronimo as soon as the artifacts are pushed?
ActiveIO 3.0.1
- Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks are
you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
tranql-connector-db2-xa 1.2
- Currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks are you planning to
update this in Geronimo or should I?
Joe Bohn
Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
We have different levels of WADI being used in the build right now -
2.0-M10 for wadi-aop
2.0-M9 for other wadi-* depends
I think we want everything in WADI at the same level, but will let
Gianny answer on the other thread....
-Donald
Joe Bohn wrote:
> I'd like to branch later today in preparation for a 2.1.1 release
> (branches/2.1.1) and update branches/2.1 to 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT. Any
> objections? Minor changes can still be made in branches/2.1.1 while we
> make preparations for a release candidate.
>
>
> AFAIK the only remaining changes are version updates in the root pom for:
>
> OpenEJB 3.0
> - Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David Blevins are
> you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>
> ActiveMQ 4.1.2
> - Passed vote ... not yet available in M2 repo. David Jencks are you
> planning to update this in Geronimo as soon as the artifacts are pushed?
>
> ActiveIO 3.0.1
> - Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks are
> you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>
> tranql-connector-db2-xa 1.2
> - Currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks are you planning to
> update this in Geronimo or should I?
>
>
> Joe Bohn
>
Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I was having some trouble staging the amq stuff but it seems to be
going now. I plan to update a bunch of versions in g. when this is
complete.... hopefully soon.
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 14, 2008, at 11:20 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> I'd like to branch later today in preparation for a 2.1.1 release
> (branches/2.1.1) and update branches/2.1 to 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT. Any
> objections? Minor changes can still be made in branches/2.1.1
> while we make preparations for a release candidate.
>
>
> AFAIK the only remaining changes are version updates in the root
> pom for:
>
> OpenEJB 3.0
> - Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David Blevins
> are you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>
> ActiveMQ 4.1.2
> - Passed vote ... not yet available in M2 repo. David Jencks
> are you planning to update this in Geronimo as soon as the
> artifacts are pushed?
>
> ActiveIO 3.0.1
> - Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks
> are you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>
> tranql-connector-db2-xa 1.2
> - Currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks are you planning
> to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>
>
> Joe Bohn
Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
branches/2.1.1 is closed to new changes beyond those which would prevent
us from shipping. I had intended to have images up for vote a few days
ago, but I'm having some difficulty creating those images. They will
hopefully be out for a vote later today.
You should include these changes in branches/2.1 (which has been updated
for 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT).
Sorry to be hard nosed about cutting the release ... but we have to cut
sometime and are always more more items coming in to include. Hopefully
we can get better at releasing smaller releases with more frequency and
2.1.2 won't be long off.
Thanks,
Joe
Gianny Damour wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to port the change set -r 650083:650084
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk to 2.1.1. This is
> a very minor change.
>
> If no one object, I will check-in in 24 hours.
>
> Thanks,
> Gianny
>
> On 15/04/2008, at 4:20 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> I'd like to branch later today in preparation for a 2.1.1 release
>> (branches/2.1.1) and update branches/2.1 to 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT. Any
>> objections? Minor changes can still be made in branches/2.1.1 while
>> we make preparations for a release candidate.
>>
>>
>> AFAIK the only remaining changes are version updates in the root pom for:
>>
>> OpenEJB 3.0
>> - Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David Blevins
>> are you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>>
>> ActiveMQ 4.1.2
>> - Passed vote ... not yet available in M2 repo. David Jencks are
>> you planning to update this in Geronimo as soon as the artifacts are
>> pushed?
>>
>> ActiveIO 3.0.1
>> - Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks are
>> you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>>
>> tranql-connector-db2-xa 1.2
>> - Currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks are you planning to
>> update this in Geronimo or should I?
>>
>>
>> Joe Bohn
>
>
Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Thanks Tim,
We have some scheduled tck runs that include a small subset of the tests
which would highlight any major/pervasive issues. Since we haven't
noticed any issues on trunk I doubt we would hit any in branches/2.1
either. For a full run I or somebody else would have to manually kick
it off. I can do that but I might have to wait a few days until I can
get a machine free to try this out.
Regarding the change it general and 2.1.1 ... It looks like we are ok
to leave this wait until 2.1.2 based upon your input and Kevan's
comments. So at this point I do not anticipate including this in 2.1.1
(which I hope I will have available for vote later today ... yes, I know
I said that yesterday too :-( ).
Joe
Tim McConnell wrote:
> Hi Joe, the fix has been applied to branches\2.1 and the build works
> with it. How a TCK run is scheduled/invoked is unclear to me though.
> Please advise if there is something I need to do for that to occur.
> Thanks much.
>
> Joe Bohn wrote:
>> So here is what I understand:
>>
>> - This is exclusively a G server problem and will not impact the GEP
>> 2.1 release. However, GEP 2.1 could reference Geronimo 2.1.1 if it is
>> released in time and hence could potentially benefit from this fix if
>> included in Geronimo 2.1.1
>> - This is a long time problem that was never identified as a show
>> stopper for Geronimo (2.1.1 or otherwise). Of course, having a fix
>> certainly changes the urgency to get it in :-)
>> - This change is currently integrated into trunk and not branches/2.1
>> or branches/2.1.1
>> - The fix is in a kernel module and as such could potentially affect
>> various areas in Geronimo (hence the caution of validation via full
>> TCK runs).
>>
>> Is this worth further delaying the 2.1.1 release to include this fix?
>> I was ready to create the release candidate now but this would delay
>> us several more days before we could even get anything out for a vote.
>> (BTW, I have already updated the version numbers in branches/2.1.1 to
>> remove SNAPSHOT in prep for the release).
>>
>> If we were to pursue this fix we should do the following:
>> 1) Put the change in branches/2.1 first. (it really needs to go there
>> anyway and it makes much more sense to merge from branches/2.1 to
>> branches/2.1.1 than from trunk to branches/2.1.1) - We should do this
>> now regardless of the plans for 2.1.1
>> 2) Validate TCK on branches/2.1 (2.1.2-SNAPSHOT)
>> 3) IIF things look good in 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT we would move the fix to 2.1.1
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> Tim McConnell wrote:
>>> Hi Kevan/Joe, yes GERONIMO-3966 has been classified as a show-stopper
>>> for GEP 2.1, but I "think" we were assuming the problem was in the
>>> GEP and not the server itself. However, it's apparently been a
>>> long-term problem in the server, and is not a windows-only problem,
>>> so I'm not certain that it should be considered a show-stopper for
>>> the GEP. Finally, I really wouldn't feel comfortable propagating it
>>> elsewhere until we have clean TCK run against it since it involves a
>>> change in the geronimo-kernel module. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Shiva,
>>>>>
>>>>> The same answer applies here that I just sent to Gianny. I've
>>>>> included it here as well just so that you don't have to go hunting....
>>>>>
>>>>> branches/2.1.1 is closed to new changes beyond those which would
>>>>> prevent us from shipping. I had intended to have images up for
>>>>> vote a few days ago, but I'm having some difficulty creating those
>>>>> images. They will hopefully be out for a vote later today.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should include these changes in branches/2.1 (which has been
>>>>> updated for 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT).
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to be hard nosed about cutting the release ... but we have to
>>>>> cut sometime and are always more more items coming in to include.
>>>>> Hopefully we can get better at releasing smaller releases with more
>>>>> frequency and 2.1.2 won't be long off.
>>>>
>>>> Joe,
>>>> I totally understand the sentiment. However, I believe that
>>>> GERONIMO-3966 has been classified as a must fix problem for the
>>>> pending release of GEP 2.1. I'd like to hear from Tim/Shiva/etc
>>>> whether or not that's true... If true, I think we need to consider
>>>> including... If we do pick it up, we should probably grab Gianny's
>>>> change...
>>>>
>>>> --kevan
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Posted by Tim McConnell <ti...@gmail.com>.
Hi Joe, the fix has been applied to branches\2.1 and the build works with it.
How a TCK run is scheduled/invoked is unclear to me though. Please advise if
there is something I need to do for that to occur. Thanks much.
Joe Bohn wrote:
> So here is what I understand:
>
> - This is exclusively a G server problem and will not impact the GEP 2.1
> release. However, GEP 2.1 could reference Geronimo 2.1.1 if it is
> released in time and hence could potentially benefit from this fix if
> included in Geronimo 2.1.1
> - This is a long time problem that was never identified as a show
> stopper for Geronimo (2.1.1 or otherwise). Of course, having a fix
> certainly changes the urgency to get it in :-)
> - This change is currently integrated into trunk and not branches/2.1 or
> branches/2.1.1
> - The fix is in a kernel module and as such could potentially affect
> various areas in Geronimo (hence the caution of validation via full TCK
> runs).
>
> Is this worth further delaying the 2.1.1 release to include this fix? I
> was ready to create the release candidate now but this would delay us
> several more days before we could even get anything out for a vote.
> (BTW, I have already updated the version numbers in branches/2.1.1 to
> remove SNAPSHOT in prep for the release).
>
> If we were to pursue this fix we should do the following:
> 1) Put the change in branches/2.1 first. (it really needs to go there
> anyway and it makes much more sense to merge from branches/2.1 to
> branches/2.1.1 than from trunk to branches/2.1.1) - We should do this
> now regardless of the plans for 2.1.1
> 2) Validate TCK on branches/2.1 (2.1.2-SNAPSHOT)
> 3) IIF things look good in 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT we would move the fix to 2.1.1
>
> Joe
>
>
> Tim McConnell wrote:
>> Hi Kevan/Joe, yes GERONIMO-3966 has been classified as a show-stopper
>> for GEP 2.1, but I "think" we were assuming the problem was in the GEP
>> and not the server itself. However, it's apparently been a long-term
>> problem in the server, and is not a windows-only problem, so I'm not
>> certain that it should be considered a show-stopper for the GEP.
>> Finally, I really wouldn't feel comfortable propagating it elsewhere
>> until we have clean TCK run against it since it involves a change in
>> the geronimo-kernel module. Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shiva,
>>>>
>>>> The same answer applies here that I just sent to Gianny. I've
>>>> included it here as well just so that you don't have to go hunting....
>>>>
>>>> branches/2.1.1 is closed to new changes beyond those which would
>>>> prevent us from shipping. I had intended to have images up for vote
>>>> a few days ago, but I'm having some difficulty creating those
>>>> images. They will hopefully be out for a vote later today.
>>>>
>>>> You should include these changes in branches/2.1 (which has been
>>>> updated for 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT).
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to be hard nosed about cutting the release ... but we have to
>>>> cut sometime and are always more more items coming in to include.
>>>> Hopefully we can get better at releasing smaller releases with more
>>>> frequency and 2.1.2 won't be long off.
>>>
>>> Joe,
>>> I totally understand the sentiment. However, I believe that
>>> GERONIMO-3966 has been classified as a must fix problem for the
>>> pending release of GEP 2.1. I'd like to hear from Tim/Shiva/etc
>>> whether or not that's true... If true, I think we need to consider
>>> including... If we do pick it up, we should probably grab Gianny's
>>> change...
>>>
>>> --kevan
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Tim McConnell
Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 21, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> So here is what I understand:
>
> - This is exclusively a G server problem and will not impact the GEP
> 2.1 release. However, GEP 2.1 could reference Geronimo 2.1.1 if it
> is released in time and hence could potentially benefit from this
> fix if included in Geronimo 2.1.1
> - This is a long time problem that was never identified as a show
> stopper for Geronimo (2.1.1 or otherwise). Of course, having a fix
> certainly changes the urgency to get it in :-)
> - This change is currently integrated into trunk and not branches/
> 2.1 or branches/2.1.1
> - The fix is in a kernel module and as such could potentially affect
> various areas in Geronimo (hence the caution of validation via full
> TCK runs).
>
> Is this worth further delaying the 2.1.1 release to include this
> fix? I was ready to create the release candidate now but this would
> delay us several more days before we could even get anything out for
> a vote. (BTW, I have already updated the version numbers in branches/
> 2.1.1 to remove SNAPSHOT in prep for the release).
>
> If we were to pursue this fix we should do the following:
> 1) Put the change in branches/2.1 first. (it really needs to go
> there anyway and it makes much more sense to merge from branches/2.1
> to branches/2.1.1 than from trunk to branches/2.1.1) - We should do
> this now regardless of the plans for 2.1.1
> 2) Validate TCK on branches/2.1 (2.1.2-SNAPSHOT)
> 3) IIF things look good in 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT we would move the fix to
> 2.1.1
If we're ok with a GEP 2.1 release, then I have no problem proceeding
with what we have... Also, looks like the other problem,
GERONIMO-3970, has a work-around...
--kevan
Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
So here is what I understand:
- This is exclusively a G server problem and will not impact the GEP 2.1
release. However, GEP 2.1 could reference Geronimo 2.1.1 if it is
released in time and hence could potentially benefit from this fix if
included in Geronimo 2.1.1
- This is a long time problem that was never identified as a show
stopper for Geronimo (2.1.1 or otherwise). Of course, having a fix
certainly changes the urgency to get it in :-)
- This change is currently integrated into trunk and not branches/2.1 or
branches/2.1.1
- The fix is in a kernel module and as such could potentially affect
various areas in Geronimo (hence the caution of validation via full TCK
runs).
Is this worth further delaying the 2.1.1 release to include this fix? I
was ready to create the release candidate now but this would delay us
several more days before we could even get anything out for a vote.
(BTW, I have already updated the version numbers in branches/2.1.1 to
remove SNAPSHOT in prep for the release).
If we were to pursue this fix we should do the following:
1) Put the change in branches/2.1 first. (it really needs to go there
anyway and it makes much more sense to merge from branches/2.1 to
branches/2.1.1 than from trunk to branches/2.1.1) - We should do this
now regardless of the plans for 2.1.1
2) Validate TCK on branches/2.1 (2.1.2-SNAPSHOT)
3) IIF things look good in 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT we would move the fix to 2.1.1
Joe
Tim McConnell wrote:
> Hi Kevan/Joe, yes GERONIMO-3966 has been classified as a show-stopper
> for GEP 2.1, but I "think" we were assuming the problem was in the GEP
> and not the server itself. However, it's apparently been a long-term
> problem in the server, and is not a windows-only problem, so I'm not
> certain that it should be considered a show-stopper for the GEP.
> Finally, I really wouldn't feel comfortable propagating it elsewhere
> until we have clean TCK run against it since it involves a change in the
> geronimo-kernel module. Thanks.
>
>
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Shiva,
>>>
>>> The same answer applies here that I just sent to Gianny. I've
>>> included it here as well just so that you don't have to go hunting....
>>>
>>> branches/2.1.1 is closed to new changes beyond those which would
>>> prevent us from shipping. I had intended to have images up for vote
>>> a few days ago, but I'm having some difficulty creating those
>>> images. They will hopefully be out for a vote later today.
>>>
>>> You should include these changes in branches/2.1 (which has been
>>> updated for 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT).
>>>
>>> Sorry to be hard nosed about cutting the release ... but we have to
>>> cut sometime and are always more more items coming in to include.
>>> Hopefully we can get better at releasing smaller releases with more
>>> frequency and 2.1.2 won't be long off.
>>
>> Joe,
>> I totally understand the sentiment. However, I believe that
>> GERONIMO-3966 has been classified as a must fix problem for the
>> pending release of GEP 2.1. I'd like to hear from Tim/Shiva/etc
>> whether or not that's true... If true, I think we need to consider
>> including... If we do pick it up, we should probably grab Gianny's
>> change...
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>
Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Posted by Tim McConnell <ti...@gmail.com>.
Hi Kevan/Joe, yes GERONIMO-3966 has been classified as a show-stopper for GEP
2.1, but I "think" we were assuming the problem was in the GEP and not the
server itself. However, it's apparently been a long-term problem in the server,
and is not a windows-only problem, so I'm not certain that it should be
considered a show-stopper for the GEP. Finally, I really wouldn't feel
comfortable propagating it elsewhere until we have clean TCK run against it
since it involves a change in the geronimo-kernel module. Thanks.
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>>
>> Shiva,
>>
>> The same answer applies here that I just sent to Gianny. I've
>> included it here as well just so that you don't have to go hunting....
>>
>> branches/2.1.1 is closed to new changes beyond those which would
>> prevent us from shipping. I had intended to have images up for vote a
>> few days ago, but I'm having some difficulty creating those images.
>> They will hopefully be out for a vote later today.
>>
>> You should include these changes in branches/2.1 (which has been
>> updated for 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT).
>>
>> Sorry to be hard nosed about cutting the release ... but we have to
>> cut sometime and are always more more items coming in to include.
>> Hopefully we can get better at releasing smaller releases with more
>> frequency and 2.1.2 won't be long off.
>
> Joe,
> I totally understand the sentiment. However, I believe that
> GERONIMO-3966 has been classified as a must fix problem for the pending
> release of GEP 2.1. I'd like to hear from Tim/Shiva/etc whether or not
> that's true... If true, I think we need to consider including... If we
> do pick it up, we should probably grab Gianny's change...
>
> --kevan
>
--
Thanks,
Tim McConnell
Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> Shiva,
>
> The same answer applies here that I just sent to Gianny. I've
> included it here as well just so that you don't have to go hunting....
>
> branches/2.1.1 is closed to new changes beyond those which would
> prevent us from shipping. I had intended to have images up for vote
> a few days ago, but I'm having some difficulty creating those
> images. They will hopefully be out for a vote later today.
>
> You should include these changes in branches/2.1 (which has been
> updated for 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT).
>
> Sorry to be hard nosed about cutting the release ... but we have to
> cut sometime and are always more more items coming in to include.
> Hopefully we can get better at releasing smaller releases with more
> frequency and 2.1.2 won't be long off.
Joe,
I totally understand the sentiment. However, I believe that
GERONIMO-3966 has been classified as a must fix problem for the
pending release of GEP 2.1. I'd like to hear from Tim/Shiva/etc
whether or not that's true... If true, I think we need to consider
including... If we do pick it up, we should probably grab Gianny's
change...
--kevan
Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Shiva,
The same answer applies here that I just sent to Gianny. I've included
it here as well just so that you don't have to go hunting....
branches/2.1.1 is closed to new changes beyond those which would prevent
us from shipping. I had intended to have images up for vote a few days
ago, but I'm having some difficulty creating those images. They will
hopefully be out for a vote later today.
You should include these changes in branches/2.1 (which has been updated
for 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT).
Sorry to be hard nosed about cutting the release ... but we have to cut
sometime and are always more more items coming in to include. Hopefully
we can get better at releasing smaller releases with more frequency and
2.1.2 won't be long off.
Thanks,
Joe
Shiva Kumar H R wrote:
> And I would like to include
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=649354
> <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=649354> in 2.1.1.
> <http://2.1.1.> This fixes GERONIMODEVTOOLS-254, GERONIMO-3975 &
> probably many other issues. Shall I?
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Gianny Damour
> <gianny.damour@optusnet.com.au <ma...@optusnet.com.au>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to port the change set -r 650083:650084
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk
> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk> to 2.1.1.
> <http://2.1.1.> This is a very minor change.
>
> If no one object, I will check-in in 24 hours.
>
> Thanks,
> Gianny
>
>
> On 15/04/2008, at 4:20 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> I'd like to branch later today in preparation for a 2.1.1
> release (branches/2.1.1) and update branches/2.1 to
> 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT. Any objections? Minor changes can still be
> made in branches/2.1.1 while we make preparations for a release
> candidate.
>
>
> AFAIK the only remaining changes are version updates in the root
> pom for:
>
> OpenEJB 3.0
> - Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David
> Blevins are you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>
> ActiveMQ 4.1.2
> - Passed vote ... not yet available in M2 repo. David Jencks
> are you planning to update this in Geronimo as soon as the
> artifacts are pushed?
>
> ActiveIO 3.0.1
> - Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David
> Jencks are you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>
> tranql-connector-db2-xa 1.2
> - Currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks are you
> planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>
>
> Joe Bohn
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Shiva
Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Posted by Shiva Kumar H R <sh...@gmail.com>.
And I would like to include
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=649354 in 2.1.1. This fixes
GERONIMODEVTOOLS-254, GERONIMO-3975 & probably many other issues. Shall I?
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Gianny Damour <
gianny.damour@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to port the change set -r 650083:650084 https://
> svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk to 2.1.1. This is a very
> minor change.
>
> If no one object, I will check-in in 24 hours.
>
> Thanks,
> Gianny
>
>
> On 15/04/2008, at 4:20 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> I'd like to branch later today in preparation for a 2.1.1 release
> > (branches/2.1.1) and update branches/2.1 to 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT. Any objections?
> > Minor changes can still be made in branches/2.1.1 while we make
> > preparations for a release candidate.
> >
> >
> > AFAIK the only remaining changes are version updates in the root pom
> > for:
> >
> > OpenEJB 3.0
> > - Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David Blevins are
> > you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
> >
> > ActiveMQ 4.1.2
> > - Passed vote ... not yet available in M2 repo. David Jencks are you
> > planning to update this in Geronimo as soon as the artifacts are pushed?
> >
> > ActiveIO 3.0.1
> > - Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks are
> > you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
> >
> > tranql-connector-db2-xa 1.2
> > - Currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks are you planning to
> > update this in Geronimo or should I?
> >
> >
> > Joe Bohn
> >
>
>
--
Thanks,
Shiva
Re: branches/2.1.1 in prep for a 2.1.1 release
Posted by Gianny Damour <gi...@optusnet.com.au>.
Hi,
I would like to port the change set -r 650083:650084 https://
svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk to 2.1.1. This is a
very minor change.
If no one object, I will check-in in 24 hours.
Thanks,
Gianny
On 15/04/2008, at 4:20 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> I'd like to branch later today in preparation for a 2.1.1 release
> (branches/2.1.1) and update branches/2.1 to 2.1.2-SNAPSHOT. Any
> objections? Minor changes can still be made in branches/2.1.1
> while we make preparations for a release candidate.
>
>
> AFAIK the only remaining changes are version updates in the root
> pom for:
>
> OpenEJB 3.0
> - Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David Blevins
> are you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>
> ActiveMQ 4.1.2
> - Passed vote ... not yet available in M2 repo. David Jencks
> are you planning to update this in Geronimo as soon as the
> artifacts are pushed?
>
> ActiveIO 3.0.1
> - Passed vote and currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks
> are you planning to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>
> tranql-connector-db2-xa 1.2
> - Currently available in M2 repo. David Jencks are you planning
> to update this in Geronimo or should I?
>
>
> Joe Bohn