I agree, but if we are not using snapshots, i.e. a true release of openejb, then this should be a moot point...the m:co could be changed to point at the openejb tag rather than the branch. If we aren't going to run after this, then I may go along with the best thing to do is to remove the m:co as it will give very bad results (as I and others have found). Thoughts?
Jeff Matt Hogstrom wrote: > It would be nice to have closure on this. Perhaps, we'll have it when > OpenEJB makes it to Apache. However, we've had issues with other Apache > projects not releasing on time...Axis is the example that comes to mind. > > I think it would be nice to have everything bundled up but in many > respects its outside our control. > > Jeff Genender wrote: >> >> David Blevins wrote: >>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 6:32 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: >>> >>>> On Jul 6, 2006, at 11:30 PM, Jeff Genender wrote: >>>> >>>>> I tried to build the v1.1 of Geronimo tag and I noticed that when I >>>>> went >>>>> to do a m:co of openejb, it is giving me the openejb branch instead of >>>>> the 2.1 tag. Sure enough, upon perusal of the tagged root maven.xml, >>>>> its pulling the openejb branch and not the tag. >>>>> >>>>> I am assuming this is an oversight and it should pull the tag orf >>>>> openejb, not the branch. Do we need this fixed so we can do a >>>>> build of >>>>> our svn tagged 1.1? >>>> Yes, I noticed this yesterday, also. The build works if you don't run >>>> m:co (the openejb 2.1 dependencies). So, I don't think we need to rush >>>> to fix this. Instead we can wait to fix in the normal 1.1.1 release >>>> cycle, which I think should be soon (in July). >>>> >>>> Clearly something that needs to be in a release process checklist. >>> At release time is one of the rare moments where we don't have a >>> snapshot dependency on OpenEJB. Why wouldn't we just disable the m:co? >>> >> >> I still believe there is value getting the state of OpenEJB at tagged >> level and accessing it with m:co. Here is an example... >> >> I am trying to research some classloading issues regarding OpenEJB and >> Geronimo 1.1. It behooves me to have source level access to both >> OpenEJB and Geronimo for the state of the Geronimo 1.1 release so I can >> accurately debug the problem. It would be nice to have the m:co >> checkout the tagged version of OpenEJB since we are not really supposed >> to have any snapshots in there. >> >>> -David >>> >>> >> >> >>
