Maybe we should apply patches to the 4.0.x branch. Could you perhaps help me identify the actual patches needed?
Incidentally, there are many companies live with 4.0.2 and happy with the fact that they have to port-forward or Windows-Terminal-Services to the machine to manage it.
- Paul
Peter Donald wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 02:22, Ulrich Mayring wrote:Just out of curiosity: was there a certain strategy behind not applying
Ulrich Mayring wrote:The patches were not applied on the release branch which means they wont be in
Hello,Apparently something's wrong with the release system?!?
the MX4J webserver always binds to localhost, no matter whether I
specify a <manager-adaptor-host> in kernel.xml or not. How can I bind to
another hostname? Localhost is not too useful for remote management :)
the 4.0.* releases but will be in 4.1.* release.
the patch to the release branch? We are currently redefining our release
processes in-house, so I'm looking around what other people do. From
what I've observed most teams do a "feature-freeze" at one point and
only bug-fixes and security-patches are allowed to go into the release
branch from then on. In this case it is a bit hard to tell if the patch
was a bug-fix or a missing feature. On one hand Phoenix runs well
without the patch, on the other hand you can't go into production
without remote management, because it has worked in earlier versions.
Our problem is we're still sitting on a pre-4.0 version from cvs in
production and need to get on top of a defined release. Is there an
earlier release version, which you could recommend to us, where remote
management works? Or should we rather wait for the next release?
cheers,
Ulrich
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
