You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Rakesh Midha <mi...@gmail.com> on 2007/04/03 11:57:20 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
I think we need to look into following issues:
1. Initial startup error caused by
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2941
2. Why is that in console's Application section and deployment list-module,
I see all the modules twice?
One with the version 2.0-M4, appears as started and one with version
2.0-M4-SNAPSHOT stopped. All the modules also have two folders for two
versions.
Its not causing any error or exception, but i am just worried as this result
in larger size of zip/gz and installed folder, and may also have other
effects.
3. Shutdown error.
thanks
Rakesh
On 4/3/07, Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Jacek
>
> On 4/1/07, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> > I have placed the 2.0-M4 binaries out on http://people.apache.org/
> > ~hogstrom/2.0-M4-rc1 for you to take a look at. (They are uploading
> > as I write this).
> >
> > I have done some testing with DayTrader. There is an issue in
> > connecting with he MDB container which still needs to be worked out
> > so the application will not deploy as is. However, given the scopwe
> > of function DayTrader covers as well as all the late code drops I
> > don't see an issue with that. Smaller samples should be ok and tests
> > look good. Given that we're in the final stages of testing I'd like
> > to get this Milestone on the wire as is and fix issues in trunk.
> > Users that pull this binary and report issues will help us in the
> > Drive to 5.
> >
> > Other than that limitation I think this Milestone looks ready to go.
> >
> > After reviewing the content please cast your vote.
> >
> > [ ] +1 - Release these binaries
> > [ ] 0
> > [ ] -1 Do not release these binaries (provide reason)
> >
> > This vote will conclude on April 4th at 0600 Eastern.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
We really should not be using the local repo like this... :-(
--jason
On Apr 3, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> I'll upload the 11 Axis2 and 11 CXF artifacts into the M4 branches
> local repo and update the pom.xml if someone will either respin/
> republish the build for me or walk me through how to do it....:-)
>
> -Donald
>
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> Can't argue with #2. I can't see how these got picked up and it
>> is sloppy. I'm ok with knocking this set of binaries down.
>> Although, I'm not sure I want to invest more time on this
>> milestone as there are lots of functional pieces to fix. Anyone
>> else want to put together an M4 or shall we pass this month?
>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 1:51 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> I'm -1 on releasing as is because of (2). I think our binaries
>>> should be cleaner that that :-/
>>>
>>> I don't think (1) is significant. There is no functional change
>>> from applying the patch from GERONIMO-2941.
>>> (3) also doesn't bother me.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:57 AM, Rakesh Midha wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we need to look into following issues:
>>>> 1. Initial startup error caused by https://issues.apache.org/
>>>> jira/browse/GERONIMO-2941
>>>>
>>>> 2. Why is that in console's Application section and deployment
>>>> list-module, I see all the modules twice?
>>>> One with the version 2.0-M4, appears as started and one with
>>>> version 2.0-M4-SNAPSHOT stopped. All the modules also have two
>>>> folders for two versions.
>>>> Its not causing any error or exception, but i am just worried as
>>>> this result in larger size of zip/gz and installed folder, and
>>>> may also have other effects.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Shutdown error.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> Rakesh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/3/07, *Jacek Laskowski* <jacek@laskowski.net.pl
>>>> <ma...@laskowski.net.pl> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Jacek
>>>>
>>>> On 4/1/07, Matt Hogstrom < matt@hogstrom.org
>>>> <ma...@hogstrom.org>> wrote:
>>>> > I have placed the 2.0-M4 binaries out on http://
>>>> people.apache.org/
>>>> > ~hogstrom/2.0-M4-rc1 for you to take a look at. (They are
>>>> uploading
>>>> > as I write this).
>>>> >
>>>> > I have done some testing with DayTrader. There is an
>>>> issue in
>>>> > connecting with he MDB container which still needs to be
>>>> worked out
>>>> > so the application will not deploy as is. However, given the
>>>> scopwe
>>>> > of function DayTrader covers as well as all the late code
>>>> drops I
>>>> > don't see an issue with that. Smaller samples should be
>>>> ok and
>>>> tests
>>>> > look good. Given that we're in the final stages of
>>>> testing I'd
>>>> like
>>>> > to get this Milestone on the wire as is and fix issues in
>>>> trunk.
>>>> > Users that pull this binary and report issues will help us
>>>> in the
>>>> > Drive to 5.
>>>> >
>>>> > Other than that limitation I think this Milestone looks ready
>>>> to go.
>>>> >
>>>> > After reviewing the content please cast your vote.
>>>> >
>>>> > [ ] +1 - Release these binaries
>>>> > [ ] 0
>>>> > [ ] -1 Do not release these binaries (provide reason)
>>>> >
>>>> > This vote will conclude on April 4th at 0600 Eastern.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks!
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jacek Laskowski
>>>> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Lesson learned, is that we need at least a milestone cut from our
dependent projects. For M4, we could have used Jetty 6.1.2rc2, which was
released on 3/27, but for CXF and Axis2, we only have timestamped
snapshots, which I couldn't get to work via the local server/repository
hack after several hours of trying, due to the snapshots having
dependencies on other snapshots....
-Donald
Jason Dillon wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> I'll upload the 11 Axis2 and 11 CXF artifacts into the M4 branches
>>> local repo and update the pom.xml if someone will either
>>> respin/republish the build for me or walk me through how to do
>>> it....:-)
>>>
>>
>> Donald, excellent and I appreciate it.
>>
>> I would checkout the 2.0-M4 in branches to start with. There must be
>> some lingering issue in hte build or we somehow picked up the SNAPSHOT
>> though some transitive dependencies.
>>
>> If you like I can provide you with the repo I used for this build. It
>> may be possible to address Alan's concern about being able to rebuild
>> as well.
>>
>> Although, personally I think the time invested in 2.0 is better spent
>> than waving a dead chicken on 2.0-M4. By the time it get built and
>> voted on we'll be into next week most likely with the next milestone a
>> few weeks away.
>>
>> I think a better solution would be to simply create an unstable set
>> and put them up on people.apache.org.
>>
>> Other's thoughts?
>
> I would just put up the assembly bin-* bits for folks to play with and
> then not worry about the rest. M5 will be here soon enough. As long as
> we can learn from what was wrong with M4 and incorporate the fixes (to
> code, process, whatever) into M5 then we are making progress.
>
> Though now I have a wonderful image of Matt twirling a dead chicken over
> his head. Can we get a dead chicken for J1 and get Matt to reenact
> this? I'd like to get that on video :-)
>
> --jason
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> I'll upload the 11 Axis2 and 11 CXF artifacts into the M4 branches
>> local repo and update the pom.xml if someone will either respin/
>> republish the build for me or walk me through how to do it....:-)
>>
>
> Donald, excellent and I appreciate it.
>
> I would checkout the 2.0-M4 in branches to start with. There must
> be some lingering issue in hte build or we somehow picked up the
> SNAPSHOT though some transitive dependencies.
>
> If you like I can provide you with the repo I used for this build.
> It may be possible to address Alan's concern about being able to
> rebuild as well.
>
> Although, personally I think the time invested in 2.0 is better
> spent than waving a dead chicken on 2.0-M4. By the time it get
> built and voted on we'll be into next week most likely with the
> next milestone a few weeks away.
>
> I think a better solution would be to simply create an unstable set
> and put them up on people.apache.org.
>
> Other's thoughts?
I would just put up the assembly bin-* bits for folks to play with
and then not worry about the rest. M5 will be here soon enough. As
long as we can learn from what was wrong with M4 and incorporate the
fixes (to code, process, whatever) into M5 then we are making progress.
Though now I have a wonderful image of Matt twirling a dead chicken
over his head. Can we get a dead chicken for J1 and get Matt to
reenact this? I'd like to get that on video :-)
--jason
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Joe Bohn wrote:
> I agree that we should spend much more time on M4 ... but if we just
> release them as-is then it shouldn't consume many more cycles.
Correction on bad typo ... "I agree that we should *not* spend much more
time on M4 ... " :-)
Joe
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
I think that we should make the binaries available as is. It gives
folks something to work even with the extra config. Aside from the
image size (and confusion if people are looking at the system modules)
they don't seem to be doing any harm.
I agree that we should spend much more time on M4 ... but if we just
release them as-is then it shouldn't consume many more cycles.
Joe
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> I'll upload the 11 Axis2 and 11 CXF artifacts into the M4 branches
>> local repo and update the pom.xml if someone will either
>> respin/republish the build for me or walk me through how to do it....:-)
>>
>
> Donald, excellent and I appreciate it.
>
> I would checkout the 2.0-M4 in branches to start with. There must be
> some lingering issue in hte build or we somehow picked up the SNAPSHOT
> though some transitive dependencies.
>
> If you like I can provide you with the repo I used for this build. It
> may be possible to address Alan's concern about being able to rebuild as
> well.
>
> Although, personally I think the time invested in 2.0 is better spent
> than waving a dead chicken on 2.0-M4. By the time it get built and
> voted on we'll be into next week most likely with the next milestone a
> few weeks away.
>
> I think a better solution would be to simply create an unstable set and
> put them up on people.apache.org.
>
> Other's thoughts?
>
>> -Donald
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1) - rc1 is dead
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
So moving forward is reproducibility of our milestone builds always
going to be an issue? I think this is pretty ridiculous that this is
such a painful process and I understand Matt's frustration.
Does any one know if Maven is using us as a case-study and working
toward addressing some of our major concerns? If not, do we look
toward another build solution in the future?
-sachin
On Apr 4, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Here's my 0.02 c.
>
> The process is owrking well as (I think it was Rakesh) that
> identified something odd about the binaries. We should not have
> both artifacts (2.0-M4 and 2.0-M4-SNAPSHOT) in the binaries.
>
> As release manager I am not comfortable releasing these and I'm
> concerned about where they got picked up and will investigate this.
>
> I will work today to spin up a corrected set of binaries that
> addresses the issues we've been discussing (buildability, etc.)
>
> I have to say that every release is a learning experience. So, for
> my part doing this once a month has been useful as it flushes out a
> new set of issues. Geronimo is so dependent on external projects
> that we are in a unique (and difficult) position from a release
> standpoint as our dependent projects do not release in a
> coordinated fashion.
>
> I have a check list of how to build and am augmenting it with a
> list of things to look for...something new every time :)
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1) - rc1 is dead
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Here's my 0.02 c.
The process is owrking well as (I think it was Rakesh) that
identified something odd about the binaries. We should not have both
artifacts (2.0-M4 and 2.0-M4-SNAPSHOT) in the binaries.
As release manager I am not comfortable releasing these and I'm
concerned about where they got picked up and will investigate this.
I will work today to spin up a corrected set of binaries that
addresses the issues we've been discussing (buildability, etc.)
I have to say that every release is a learning experience. So, for
my part doing this once a month has been useful as it flushes out a
new set of issues. Geronimo is so dependent on external projects
that we are in a unique (and difficult) position from a release
standpoint as our dependent projects do not release in a coordinated
fashion.
I have a check list of how to build and am augmenting it with a list
of things to look for...something new every time :)
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
I tend to agree since these are milestone snapshots not real
releases, but am wondering how the repo/source release part would
work. Can someone explain?
Regards,
Alan
On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Agree, lets release M4 as-is with the repo and source zipfiles, in
> case anyone wants to debug a problem they find....
>
> -Donald
>
> Hernan Cunico wrote:
>> can't we just provide the binaries?, it is a milestone release
>> that will live less than a month.
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll upload the 11 Axis2 and 11 CXF artifacts into the M4
>>>> branches local repo and update the pom.xml if someone will
>>>> either respin/republish the build for me or walk me through how
>>>> to do it....:-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Donald, excellent and I appreciate it.
>>>
>>> I would checkout the 2.0-M4 in branches to start with. There
>>> must be some lingering issue in hte build or we somehow picked up
>>> the SNAPSHOT though some transitive dependencies.
>>>
>>> If you like I can provide you with the repo I used for this
>>> build. It may be possible to address Alan's concern about being
>>> able to rebuild as well.
>>>
>>> Although, personally I think the time invested in 2.0 is better
>>> spent than waving a dead chicken on 2.0-M4. By the time it get
>>> built and voted on we'll be into next week most likely with the
>>> next milestone a few weeks away.
>>>
>>> I think a better solution would be to simply create an unstable
>>> set and put them up on people.apache.org.
>>>
>>> Other's thoughts?
>>>
>>>> -Donald
>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
Agree, lets release M4 as-is with the repo and source zipfiles, in case
anyone wants to debug a problem they find....
-Donald
Hernan Cunico wrote:
> can't we just provide the binaries?, it is a milestone release that will
> live less than a month.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> I'll upload the 11 Axis2 and 11 CXF artifacts into the M4 branches
>>> local repo and update the pom.xml if someone will either
>>> respin/republish the build for me or walk me through how to do
>>> it....:-)
>>>
>>
>> Donald, excellent and I appreciate it.
>>
>> I would checkout the 2.0-M4 in branches to start with. There must be
>> some lingering issue in hte build or we somehow picked up the SNAPSHOT
>> though some transitive dependencies.
>>
>> If you like I can provide you with the repo I used for this build. It
>> may be possible to address Alan's concern about being able to rebuild
>> as well.
>>
>> Although, personally I think the time invested in 2.0 is better spent
>> than waving a dead chicken on 2.0-M4. By the time it get built and
>> voted on we'll be into next week most likely with the next milestone a
>> few weeks away.
>>
>> I think a better solution would be to simply create an unstable set
>> and put them up on people.apache.org.
>>
>> Other's thoughts?
>>
>>> -Donald
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
can't we just provide the binaries?, it is a milestone release that will live less than a month.
Cheers!
Hernan
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> I'll upload the 11 Axis2 and 11 CXF artifacts into the M4 branches
>> local repo and update the pom.xml if someone will either
>> respin/republish the build for me or walk me through how to do it....:-)
>>
>
> Donald, excellent and I appreciate it.
>
> I would checkout the 2.0-M4 in branches to start with. There must be
> some lingering issue in hte build or we somehow picked up the SNAPSHOT
> though some transitive dependencies.
>
> If you like I can provide you with the repo I used for this build. It
> may be possible to address Alan's concern about being able to rebuild as
> well.
>
> Although, personally I think the time invested in 2.0 is better spent
> than waving a dead chicken on 2.0-M4. By the time it get built and
> voted on we'll be into next week most likely with the next milestone a
> few weeks away.
>
> I think a better solution would be to simply create an unstable set and
> put them up on people.apache.org.
>
> Other's thoughts?
>
>> -Donald
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> I'll upload the 11 Axis2 and 11 CXF artifacts into the M4 branches
> local repo and update the pom.xml if someone will either respin/
> republish the build for me or walk me through how to do it....:-)
>
Donald, excellent and I appreciate it.
I would checkout the 2.0-M4 in branches to start with. There must be
some lingering issue in hte build or we somehow picked up the
SNAPSHOT though some transitive dependencies.
If you like I can provide you with the repo I used for this build.
It may be possible to address Alan's concern about being able to
rebuild as well.
Although, personally I think the time invested in 2.0 is better spent
than waving a dead chicken on 2.0-M4. By the time it get built and
voted on we'll be into next week most likely with the next milestone
a few weeks away.
I think a better solution would be to simply create an unstable set
and put them up on people.apache.org.
Other's thoughts?
> -Donald
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
I'll upload the 11 Axis2 and 11 CXF artifacts into the M4 branches local
repo and update the pom.xml if someone will either respin/republish the
build for me or walk me through how to do it....:-)
-Donald
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Can't argue with #2. I can't see how these got picked up and it is
> sloppy. I'm ok with knocking this set of binaries down. Although, I'm
> not sure I want to invest more time on this milestone as there are lots
> of functional pieces to fix.
>
> Anyone else want to put together an M4 or shall we pass this month?
>
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 1:51 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I'm -1 on releasing as is because of (2). I think our binaries should
>> be cleaner that that :-/
>>
>> I don't think (1) is significant. There is no functional change from
>> applying the patch from GERONIMO-2941.
>> (3) also doesn't bother me.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:57 AM, Rakesh Midha wrote:
>>
>>> I think we need to look into following issues:
>>> 1. Initial startup error caused by
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2941
>>>
>>> 2. Why is that in console's Application section and deployment
>>> list-module, I see all the modules twice?
>>> One with the version 2.0-M4, appears as started and one with version
>>> 2.0-M4-SNAPSHOT stopped. All the modules also have two folders for
>>> two versions.
>>> Its not causing any error or exception, but i am just worried as this
>>> result in larger size of zip/gz and installed folder, and may also
>>> have other effects.
>>>
>>> 3. Shutdown error.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> Rakesh
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/3/07, *Jacek Laskowski* <jacek@laskowski.net.pl
>>> <ma...@laskowski.net.pl> > wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Jacek
>>>
>>> On 4/1/07, Matt Hogstrom < matt@hogstrom.org
>>> <ma...@hogstrom.org>> wrote:
>>> > I have placed the 2.0-M4 binaries out on http://people.apache.org/
>>> > ~hogstrom/2.0-M4-rc1 for you to take a look at. (They are
>>> uploading
>>> > as I write this).
>>> >
>>> > I have done some testing with DayTrader. There is an issue in
>>> > connecting with he MDB container which still needs to be worked out
>>> > so the application will not deploy as is. However, given the
>>> scopwe
>>> > of function DayTrader covers as well as all the late code drops I
>>> > don't see an issue with that. Smaller samples should be ok and
>>> tests
>>> > look good. Given that we're in the final stages of testing I'd
>>> like
>>> > to get this Milestone on the wire as is and fix issues in trunk.
>>> > Users that pull this binary and report issues will help us in the
>>> > Drive to 5.
>>> >
>>> > Other than that limitation I think this Milestone looks ready
>>> to go.
>>> >
>>> > After reviewing the content please cast your vote.
>>> >
>>> > [ ] +1 - Release these binaries
>>> > [ ] 0
>>> > [ ] -1 Do not release these binaries (provide reason)
>>> >
>>> > This vote will conclude on April 4th at 0600 Eastern.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks!
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacek Laskowski
>>> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Can't argue with #2. I can't see how these got picked up and it is
sloppy. I'm ok with knocking this set of binaries down. Although,
I'm not sure I want to invest more time on this milestone as there
are lots of functional pieces to fix.
Anyone else want to put together an M4 or shall we pass this month?
On Apr 3, 2007, at 1:51 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I'm -1 on releasing as is because of (2). I think our binaries
> should be cleaner that that :-/
>
> I don't think (1) is significant. There is no functional change
> from applying the patch from GERONIMO-2941.
> (3) also doesn't bother me.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:57 AM, Rakesh Midha wrote:
>
>> I think we need to look into following issues:
>> 1. Initial startup error caused by https://issues.apache.org/jira/
>> browse/GERONIMO-2941
>>
>> 2. Why is that in console's Application section and deployment
>> list-module, I see all the modules twice?
>> One with the version 2.0-M4, appears as started and one with
>> version 2.0-M4-SNAPSHOT stopped. All the modules also have two
>> folders for two versions.
>> Its not causing any error or exception, but i am just worried as
>> this result in larger size of zip/gz and installed folder, and may
>> also have other effects.
>>
>> 3. Shutdown error.
>>
>> thanks
>> Rakesh
>>
>>
>> On 4/3/07, Jacek Laskowski <jacek@laskowski.net.pl > wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Jacek
>>
>> On 4/1/07, Matt Hogstrom < matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> > I have placed the 2.0-M4 binaries out on http://people.apache.org/
>> > ~hogstrom/2.0-M4-rc1 for you to take a look at. (They are
>> uploading
>> > as I write this).
>> >
>> > I have done some testing with DayTrader. There is an issue in
>> > connecting with he MDB container which still needs to be worked out
>> > so the application will not deploy as is. However, given the
>> scopwe
>> > of function DayTrader covers as well as all the late code drops I
>> > don't see an issue with that. Smaller samples should be ok and
>> tests
>> > look good. Given that we're in the final stages of testing I'd
>> like
>> > to get this Milestone on the wire as is and fix issues in trunk.
>> > Users that pull this binary and report issues will help us in the
>> > Drive to 5.
>> >
>> > Other than that limitation I think this Milestone looks ready to
>> go.
>> >
>> > After reviewing the content please cast your vote.
>> >
>> > [ ] +1 - Release these binaries
>> > [ ] 0
>> > [ ] -1 Do not release these binaries (provide reason)
>> >
>> > This vote will conclude on April 4th at 0600 Eastern.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacek Laskowski
>> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] 2.0-M4 Binaries available (rc1)
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I'm -1 on releasing as is because of (2). I think our binaries
should be cleaner that that :-/
I don't think (1) is significant. There is no functional change from
applying the patch from GERONIMO-2941.
(3) also doesn't bother me.
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:57 AM, Rakesh Midha wrote:
> I think we need to look into following issues:
> 1. Initial startup error caused by https://issues.apache.org/jira/
> browse/GERONIMO-2941
>
> 2. Why is that in console's Application section and deployment list-
> module, I see all the modules twice?
> One with the version 2.0-M4, appears as started and one with
> version 2.0-M4-SNAPSHOT stopped. All the modules also have two
> folders for two versions.
> Its not causing any error or exception, but i am just worried as
> this result in larger size of zip/gz and installed folder, and may
> also have other effects.
>
> 3. Shutdown error.
>
> thanks
> Rakesh
>
>
> On 4/3/07, Jacek Laskowski <jacek@laskowski.net.pl > wrote:
> +1
>
> Jacek
>
> On 4/1/07, Matt Hogstrom < matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> > I have placed the 2.0-M4 binaries out on http://people.apache.org/
> > ~hogstrom/2.0-M4-rc1 for you to take a look at. (They are uploading
> > as I write this).
> >
> > I have done some testing with DayTrader. There is an issue in
> > connecting with he MDB container which still needs to be worked out
> > so the application will not deploy as is. However, given the scopwe
> > of function DayTrader covers as well as all the late code drops I
> > don't see an issue with that. Smaller samples should be ok and
> tests
> > look good. Given that we're in the final stages of testing I'd like
> > to get this Milestone on the wire as is and fix issues in trunk.
> > Users that pull this binary and report issues will help us in the
> > Drive to 5.
> >
> > Other than that limitation I think this Milestone looks ready to go.
> >
> > After reviewing the content please cast your vote.
> >
> > [ ] +1 - Release these binaries
> > [ ] 0
> > [ ] -1 Do not release these binaries (provide reason)
> >
> > This vote will conclude on April 4th at 0600 Eastern.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
>