As far as I know, the patch is valid, it just needs to be applied to a
different module than it was created against.  I'm not sure if we're
waiting for this for the release or not.  I had hoped it would go in.
Hiram, do you want to look at it or do you want me to?

Thanks,
   Aaron

On 6/12/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I thought that we were waiting for
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1451 to be fixed.

Aaron and Hiram do you know what is happening here?

John

Kevan Miller wrote:
> My first response went to the user list. I'm repeating on dev...
>
> ActiveMQ 3.2.4 hasn't been released yet? I see we're still including
> ActiveMQ 3.2.4-SNAPSHOT in our repository. What's the plan, there?
>
> I don't think we can release until ActiveMQ has released... Is there
> some problem?
>
> --kevan
>
> On Jun 11, 2006, at 11:48 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> Over the past few days the outstanding issues that were raised about
>> the first candidate have been addressed.
>>
>> They were that we were missing the LICENSE.txt as well as Notices
>> from the distribution.  I added them.  Guillaume also pointed out
>> that he noted that there should be a Third Party Notices.  This was
>> not included in the original 1.0 or previous distributions so I did
>> not follow it up.  Thoughts?
>>
>> Also, the 1.0 release notes were removed and updated the thread
>> started by Hernan.  The Wiki has been updated and the wiki was the
>> source used to create the RELEASE-NOTES-1.1.txt file you will find in
>> the build.
>>
>> To avoid issues with the version number and the plugins I used rc1
>> which Aaron had added in the plugins for supported versions so I
>> trust that works here.
>>
>> JSisson addressed the problem with not being able to run Geronimo
>> under CygWin and Kevan worked with Aaron to address a new deployment
>> problem that left partially deployed artifacts in the repository.
>>
>> I have taken this build and run some performance tests on it and we
>> are significantly better in 1.1 than we were in 1.0.  We have a lot
>> of improvement left for CMP EJBs.  It appears that the performance
>> improvements in the EJB tier has changed a race condition when
>> running under DB2.  I'm afraid that the only way to address the
>> problem is to add a new feature to TranQL and OEJB that allow for the
>> specification of Isolation Levels for individual beans.  This is a
>> relatively simple change but the build as it stands is specification
>> compliant.  I would prefer to let this release go forward since CMP
>> 2.1 EJBs are not nearly as common as the other J2EE components.  I
>> would like to address this in 1.1.1 however I don't think we've
>> locked down whether that would be allowed or not.  The change would
>> affect TranQL and OpenEJB so they are really included components so
>> I'd be interested in people's feedback.
>>
>> So please accept a named RC1.  Your voting and feedback are for:
>>
>> Geronimo 1.1
>> DayTrader 1.1
>> Specs 1.1
>>
>> The vote will stand for 72 hours.  Issues raised will be discussed
>> and if we conclude that there is a bug that must be addressed then we
>> will mitigate the problem and respin a new rc for a 72 hour vote.
>>
>> If this is accepted all three of the above components will be
>> released simultaneously.
>>
>> Here are the builds for your review and comment:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-rc1.zip
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-romcat-j2ee-1.1-rc1.zip
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-rc1.zip
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-minimal-1.1-rc1.zip
>>
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/daytrader-ear-1.1-rc1.zip
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to your comments and feedback.
>>
>
>


Reply via email to