I'll go ahead and update branches/2.0 to 2.0.2-SNAPSHOT as this needs
to be done regardless.
On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:03 PM, David Jencks wrote:
So before we all jump onto option 2 maybe we should consider just
how big a change this set of bugs is causing and comparatively how
much branches/2.0 has changed since 2.0.0 was cut.
It looks like there have been about 15 commits to branches/2.0 that
aren't version changes, many of them simple fixes that make things
like the plugin installer actually usable. On the other hand so
far I've modified 16 files working on this security fix (admittedly
most of them either simple fixes and/or documentation) and still
have to figure out a solution to SubjectRegistrationLoginModule not
working (GERONIMO-3407)
If we go with (2) I would like some of the changes to branches/2.0
to be merged in, especially rev 563592. I think r563662 and
r563782 would be good also.
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
All,
Earlier today one of the Geronimo committers discovered a bug in
the command line deployer where a null user / password on the
deployer command line will allow a user to deploy modules to a 2.0
server. This is an unacceptable security exposure and as such we
have abandoned the release of Geronimo 2.0.
Donald Woods is going to open a JIRA for this issue and Hernan
will create a news item on our web page.
At this point we need to discuss how to move forward with a 2.0
release.
I think we should delete the tags/2.0.0 entry and replace it with
a text file that notes the svn rev of the tree before deletion.
The purpose of this is to avoid anyone from picking up that source
tree and using it to build a server with a known security
exposure. Unless there is disagreement I'd like to do that
tomorrow allowing some time for discussion. We can always put it
back.
There are several options for the 2.0 release:
1. Use the branches/2.0 to spin up a new release as 2.0.1.
If we do this there are a number of fixes that need to be
verified, We'd need to close out the SNAPSHOT releases again, or
at least revisit them.
Respin and re-tck a new release.
2. Take the tags/2.0.0 to create a branches/2.0.1
This would mean that we need to update branches/2.0 to 2.0.2-
SNAPSHOT
Copy the existing tag over and apply the security fixes. Repsin
and release.
Personally, I vote for option 2. Based on my experience, closing
out the SNAPSHOTs is and introducing little changes will cause us
to restart the release process.
I'd like to hear other people's input but having done the release
several times option 2 is the fastest. I think option 1 will
cause us to not release until September.
