You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> on 2006/08/07 21:41:27 UTC
Drop the m1 build
I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
+1 to remove the m1 build
-dain
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Its probably important to note that if the TCK passes against an m1
build of 1.2, that does not mean that it will also pass against an m2
build.
So, I don't see any reason to keep m1 around anymore.
* * *
Kevan, what needs to be done to get the TCK runnable against the m2
build of 1.2?
--jason
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:03 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> It definitely impacts aspects of TCK. Agreed that it's important
> that we hear from the people who are going to get those aspects of
> the TCK working... ;-)
>
> At this point, I don't see any harm in dropping m1. It's not going
> to add any additional work and will drive our adoption of m2...
>
> --kevan
>
> On Aug 7, 2006, at 11:26 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> I am all for dropping the m1 build too...
>>
>> But I think the people who run the TCK should speak up first as
>> this may
>> impact them significantly...
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for
>>>> several days
>>>> now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 to remove the m1 build
>>>>
>>>> -dain
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
It definitely impacts aspects of TCK. Agreed that it's important that
we hear from the people who are going to get those aspects of the TCK
working... ;-)
At this point, I don't see any harm in dropping m1. It's not going to
add any additional work and will drive our adoption of m2...
--kevan
On Aug 7, 2006, at 11:26 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> I am all for dropping the m1 build too...
>
> But I think the people who run the TCK should speak up first as
> this may
> impact them significantly...
>
> Jeff
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
>>> days
>>> now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>>>
>>> +1 to remove the m1 build
>>>
>>> -dain
>> +1
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
I am all for dropping the m1 build too...
But I think the people who run the TCK should speak up first as this may
impact them significantly...
Jeff
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several days
>> now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>>
>> +1 to remove the m1 build
>>
>> -dain
> +1
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several days
> now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>
> +1 to remove the m1 build
>
> -dain
+1
Regards,
Alan
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 8/7/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>
> +1 to remove the m1 build
I'm in favor of removing the M1 build from trunk.
Thanks,
Aaron
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I'm all for getting rid of those test related errors that are not
errors (or maybe are errors and they test is broken and does not
fail)... but I think they are independent.
--jason
On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:19 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
> Does pristine mean that all those ugly runtime exceptions, gbean
> start errors, illegal state errors, assertion errors, and
> NoClassDefFound errors mentioned in the "Maven2 ... we are almost
> there" thread will be resolved? If so, and we must first remove
> the m1 build to get these addressed, then I'm all for removal.
>
> I realize that many of those errors may be present with the M1
> build (but just not logged as DJ pointed out) but seeing them now
> makes the build look much worse than with M1. I'm not sure what
> level of confidence people have with the build when seeing these
> all scroll by. It sure doesn't give me any warm fuzzies.
>
> Joe
>
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 2006, at 8:18 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>>> I caution against removing the m1 until the m2 build has been stable
>>> for a period of time. We made this mistake with ActiveMQ and
>>> ServiceMix and wound up having to restore the m1 build while
>>> gremlins
>>> were flushed from the m2 build.
>> Hrm... its stable now :-P And I am not really sure how well the
>> m1 build works.
>>> I tend to think Jason's proposal is better one. Give it some time to
>>> be tested and get stable.
>> JVZ?
>> The m2 build has been in various stages of stablish for a few
>> weeks now.
>> The main issue I have with keeping it around, and praying it
>> still works kinda... is that it prevents us from continuing to
>> clean things up (getting files into better places to reduce pom
>> config, renaming directories to conform to artifactIds, fixing
>> variables used for filtering).
>> There is still a week or so that needs to be spent post-removal of
>> m1 to get the m2 build pristine... and I don't see any reason why
>> we should wait much longer before doing it.
>> --jason
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Does pristine mean that all those ugly runtime exceptions, gbean start
errors, illegal state errors, assertion errors, and NoClassDefFound
errors mentioned in the "Maven2 ... we are almost there" thread will be
resolved? If so, and we must first remove the m1 build to get these
addressed, then I'm all for removal.
I realize that many of those errors may be present with the M1 build
(but just not logged as DJ pointed out) but seeing them now makes the
build look much worse than with M1. I'm not sure what level of
confidence people have with the build when seeing these all scroll by.
It sure doesn't give me any warm fuzzies.
Joe
Jason Dillon wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2006, at 8:18 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
>> I caution against removing the m1 until the m2 build has been stable
>> for a period of time. We made this mistake with ActiveMQ and
>> ServiceMix and wound up having to restore the m1 build while gremlins
>> were flushed from the m2 build.
>
>
> Hrm... its stable now :-P And I am not really sure how well the m1
> build works.
>
>
>> I tend to think Jason's proposal is better one. Give it some time to
>> be tested and get stable.
>
>
> JVZ?
>
> The m2 build has been in various stages of stablish for a few weeks now.
>
> The main issue I have with keeping it around, and praying it still
> works kinda... is that it prevents us from continuing to clean things
> up (getting files into better places to reduce pom config, renaming
> directories to conform to artifactIds, fixing variables used for
> filtering).
>
> There is still a week or so that needs to be spent post-removal of m1
> to get the m2 build pristine... and I don't see any reason why we
> should wait much longer before doing it.
>
> --jason
>
>
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Aug 17, 2006, at 8:18 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> I caution against removing the m1 until the m2 build has been stable
> for a period of time. We made this mistake with ActiveMQ and
> ServiceMix and wound up having to restore the m1 build while gremlins
> were flushed from the m2 build.
Hrm... its stable now :-P And I am not really sure how well the m1
build works.
> I tend to think Jason's proposal is better one. Give it some time to
> be tested and get stable.
JVZ?
The m2 build has been in various stages of stablish for a few weeks now.
The main issue I have with keeping it around, and praying it still
works kinda... is that it prevents us from continuing to clean things
up (getting files into better places to reduce pom config, renaming
directories to conform to artifactIds, fixing variables used for
filtering).
There is still a week or so that needs to be spent post-removal of m1
to get the m2 build pristine... and I don't see any reason why we
should wait much longer before doing it.
--jason
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 8/9/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> So far there have been no negative reponses, and several PMC +1s
>
> Can we start an official vote and then plan for the removal of m1?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> >> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
> >> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
I caution against removing the m1 until the m2 build has been stable
for a period of time. We made this mistake with ActiveMQ and
ServiceMix and wound up having to restore the m1 build while gremlins
were flushed from the m2 build.
I tend to think Jason's proposal is better one. Give it some time to
be tested and get stable.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I asked a few times about a formal vote... that all went unanswered.
Informally though the response was positive, as I noted in a previous
email:
<snip>
+1: dain, jason (me), paul, sachin, david jencks, david blevins,
prasad, anita, gianny, alan, matt
"in favor": aaron
"all for dropping, w/ tck consideration": jeff
"don't see any harm in dropping": kevan
</snip>
:-\
Shall we make a formal vote then?
--jason
On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> What happened to a vote?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> Okay... replying to myself.
>>
>> How about... since no one has had anything to say.
>>
>> I suggest we drop the m1 build at the end of next week, friday the
>> 25th.
>>
>> And unless I hear any objections I am going to follow through... so
>> please speak up if you want to keep the old rusting clunker around
>> for
>> longer.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/9/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>>> So far there have been no negative reponses, and several PMC +1s
>>>
>>> Can we start an official vote and then plan for the removal of m1?
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> >> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
>>> >> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>>> >> +1 to remove the m1 build
>>> >> -dain
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 8/18/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have some disruptive changes to make to
> trunk this vote is to capture the communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and development structure for purposes of this vote
> all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow directory reoganizations
> starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason to notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
>
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
+1
--jason
On Aug 18, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have
> some disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture
> the communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and development
> structure for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason
> to notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA http://
> issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Aug 18, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have
> some disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture
> the communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and development
> structure for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason
> to notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA http://
> issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
-sachin
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Chris Cardona <ja...@yahoo.com>.
+1 Allow changes
Cheers,
chris
--- Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2
> conversion and have some disruptive changes to make
> to
> trunk this vote is to capture the communities input
> on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and
> development structure for purposes of this vote
> all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from
> trunk and allow directory reoganizations
> starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason to notify
> dev list about pending changes. JIRA
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331
> created to track issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide
> rationale)
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
+1
Cheers
Prasad
On 8/18/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> +1 - drop the m1 artifacts
>
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> > Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have some
> > disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture the
> > communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
> >
> > Given that this is about our build environment and development structure
> > for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
> >
> > The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
> > directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason to
> > notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA
> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track issue.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Allow changes
> > [ ] 0 No opinion
> > [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
+1 - drop the m1 artifacts
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have some
> disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture the
> communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and development structure
> for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason to
> notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1000000000000000000000000000000
-dain
On Aug 18, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have
> some disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture
> the communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and development
> structure for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason
> to notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA http://
> issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
+1 Allow changes
Thanks
Anita
--- Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I think you can call it. If in the future you want a clear end date
> just tag it with a 72-hour
> completion when calling the vote. Or whatever time period is
> appropriate.
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
> > This vote has been running for 3+ days now:
> >
> > +1: matt, djencks, prasad, jacek, joe, paul, chris, gianny, sachin,
>
> > john, alan, kevan, jason
> > +1000000000000000000000000000000: dain
> >
> > Can well call this vote?
> >
> > --jason
> >
> >
> > On Aug 18, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >
> >> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have
> some
> >> disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture the
> >> communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
> >>
> >> Given that this is about our build environment and development
> >> structure for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
> >>
> >> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and
> allow
> >> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason
> to
> >> notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA
> >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to
> track
> >> issue.
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> >> [ ] 0 No opinion
> >> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[VOTE] (RESULTS) Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Okay, I'm going to call this vote now. One extra +1 from Anita since
my last email brings the tally to:
+1: matt*, djencks*, prasad, jacek*, joe, paul, chris, gianny*,
sachin*, john*, alan*, kevan*, jason, anita
+1000000000000000000000000000000: dain
15 +1 (including dain's) which includes 8 +1 votes from PMC* members.
No negative votes.
* * *
I'm going to begin removing m1 bits after the move of trunk tonight.
I will send out more email that explains what I am going to do a
little later.
--jason
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I think you can call it. If in the future you want a clear end date just tag it with a 72-hour
completion when calling the vote. Or whatever time period is appropriate.
Jason Dillon wrote:
> This vote has been running for 3+ days now:
>
> +1: matt, djencks, prasad, jacek, joe, paul, chris, gianny, sachin,
> john, alan, kevan, jason
> +1000000000000000000000000000000: dain
>
> Can well call this vote?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Aug 18, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have some
>> disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture the
>> communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>>
>> Given that this is about our build environment and development
>> structure for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
>>
>> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
>> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason to
>> notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track
>> issue.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Allow changes
>> [ ] 0 No opinion
>> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
This vote has been running for 3+ days now:
+1: matt, djencks, prasad, jacek, joe, paul, chris, gianny, sachin,
john, alan, kevan, jason
+1000000000000000000000000000000: dain
Can well call this vote?
--jason
On Aug 18, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have
> some disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture
> the communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and development
> structure for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason
> to notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA http://
> issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
+1
John
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have some
> disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture the
> communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and development
> structure for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason to
> notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track
> issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
>
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
[X] +1 Allow changes
Joe
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have some
> disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture the
> communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and development structure
> for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason to
> notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
+1 Allow changes
david jencks
On Aug 18, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have
> some disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture
> the communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and development
> structure for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason
> to notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA http://
> issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Alan Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have some
> disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture the
> communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and development
> structure for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason to
> notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track
> issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
+1
Regards,
Alan
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Gianny Damour <gi...@optusnet.com.au>.
+1
Gianny
On 19/08/2006, at 1:37 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have
> some disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture
> the communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and development
> structure for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason
> to notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA http://
> issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
+1
--kevan
On Aug 18, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have
> some disruptive changes to make to trunk this vote is to capture
> the communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
>
> Given that this is about our build environment and development
> structure for purposes of this vote all votes are binding.
>
> The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow
> directory reoganizations starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason
> to notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA http://
> issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track issue.
>
> [ ] +1 Allow changes
> [ ] 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
Re: [VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
> [X] +1 Allow changes
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
[VOTE] Drop the M1 build artifacts in Trunk
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Given that we are close to completing the M2 conversion and have some disruptive changes to make to
trunk this vote is to capture the communities input on the structure of the Geronimo repository.
Given that this is about our build environment and development structure for purposes of this vote
all votes are binding.
The vote is to remove Maven 1 build artificats from trunk and allow directory reoganizations
starting on Wednesday August 23. Jason to notify dev list about pending changes. JIRA
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2331 created to track issue.
[ ] +1 Allow changes
[ ] 0 No opinion
[ ] -1 Keep M1 artifacts in place (provide rationale)
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
FYI, I have no objections to a formal vote... just I'm not sure how
the voting rules play with our current situation, and was hoping
someone from the PMC would have started the vote.
You want to start one now that you have been recently blessed?
--jason
On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> What happened to a vote?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> Okay... replying to myself.
>>
>> How about... since no one has had anything to say.
>>
>> I suggest we drop the m1 build at the end of next week, friday the
>> 25th.
>>
>> And unless I hear any objections I am going to follow through... so
>> please speak up if you want to keep the old rusting clunker around
>> for
>> longer.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/9/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>>> So far there have been no negative reponses, and several PMC +1s
>>>
>>> Can we start an official vote and then plan for the removal of m1?
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> >> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
>>> >> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>>> >> +1 to remove the m1 build
>>> >> -dain
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
What happened to a vote?
Regards,
Alan
Jason Dillon wrote:
> Okay... replying to myself.
>
> How about... since no one has had anything to say.
>
> I suggest we drop the m1 build at the end of next week, friday the 25th.
>
> And unless I hear any objections I am going to follow through... so
> please speak up if you want to keep the old rusting clunker around for
> longer.
>
> --jason
>
>
>
> On 8/9/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>> So far there have been no negative reponses, and several PMC +1s
>>
>> Can we start an official vote and then plan for the removal of m1?
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> > Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> >> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
>> >> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>> >> +1 to remove the m1 build
>> >> -dain
>>
>>
Re: Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Okay... replying to myself.
How about... since no one has had anything to say.
I suggest we drop the m1 build at the end of next week, friday the 25th.
And unless I hear any objections I am going to follow through... so
please speak up if you want to keep the old rusting clunker around for
longer.
--jason
On 8/9/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> So far there have been no negative reponses, and several PMC +1s
>
> Can we start an official vote and then plan for the removal of m1?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> >> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
> >> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
> >> +1 to remove the m1 build
> >> -dain
>
>
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
So far there have been no negative reponses, and several PMC +1s
Can we start an official vote and then plan for the removal of m1?
--jason
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:24 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> +1
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
>> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>> +1 to remove the m1 build
>> -dain
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
+1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several days
> now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>
> +1 to remove the m1 build
>
> -dain
>
>
>
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
+1
--jason
On Aug 7, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>
> +1 to remove the m1 build
>
> -dain
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1 to remove the m1 build
Paul
On 8/7/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>
> +1 to remove the m1 build
>
> -dain
>
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Gianny Damour <gi...@optusnet.com.au>.
+1
Gianny
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>
> +1 to remove the m1 build
>
> -dain
>
>
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
+1
david jencks
On Aug 7, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>
> +1 to remove the m1 build
>
> -dain
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
+1 ... bandages come off better with speed and the pain won't last as long.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several days
> now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>
> +1 to remove the m1 build
>
> -dain
>
>
>
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
+1
Cheers
Prasad
On 8/7/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> -David
>
> On Aug 7, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> > I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
> > days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
> >
> > +1 to remove the m1 build
> >
> > -dain
> >
>
>
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
+1
-David
On Aug 7, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>
> +1 to remove the m1 build
>
> -dain
>
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Aug 7, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> ken for several days now and no one has noticed. Here is my v
-sachin
Re: Drop the m1 build
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
+1
Cheers
Anita
--- Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> I propose we remove the m1 build. It has been broken for several
> days now and no one has noticed. Here is my vote:
>
> +1 to remove the m1 build
>
> -dain
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com