OK, thanks for all of your support, we pass the vote for Tomcat 7.0.0.1. I will promote it to central repository later. Three binding vote : Rick, Ivan, and Joe Bohn.
2010/5/8 Ivan <[email protected]> > Hi, just find that while stopping the server, there is some exceptions > about failing to unregister some Tomcat MBeans, I guess that there is still > some issues about MBean in Tomcat while I pull the codes. However, I did not > think that it is a blocking error. If no objection, I would pass the vote > and promote the Tomcat to center repository. > > 2010/5/6 Rex Wang <[email protected]> > > Agree, We can just add a comment in its pom, which records the revision our >> external tomcat based on. >> >> -Rex >> >> 2010/5/6 Ivan <[email protected]> >> >> I think that our four version numbers could help us, while Tomcat always >>> has three version number. In next iteration, we call our version 7.0.0.1, >>> which means more changes are merged from Tomcat 7 dev tree ...... >>> >>> 2010/5/5 Vamsavardhana Reddy <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Kevan Miller <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 4, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Joe Bohn wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > +1 (assuming the potential license issue mentioned below is not an >>>>> issue) >>>>> > >>>>> > I was able to build and run the new tomcat image. >>>>> > >>>>> > The license issue pointed out last time is now resolved but there is >>>>> one other potential issue. I noticed a number of files under jasper-el >>>>> that >>>>> are generated using JJTree & JavaCC and so have the following header but >>>>> no >>>>> Apache license header. For example: >>>>> > >>>>> > /* Generated By:JJTree&JavaCC: Do not edit this line. ELParser.java >>>>> */ >>>>> > >>>>> > Some other generated files include both a generated header and which >>>>> is immediately followed by the Apache license header. This seems a little >>>>> better to me. However, I see that we have released these without the >>>>> Apache >>>>> header in earlier versions (and Tomcat as well) - so I presume there must >>>>> be >>>>> some valid justification for not including an Apache License header in >>>>> these >>>>> files. Just pointing it out now in case it really needs some attention >>>>> and >>>>> has just escaped being noticed until now. Comments? >>>>> >>>>> I've certainly noticed them in the past... Machine generated files do >>>>> not require license headers. So, IMO, these files are fine. >>>>> >>>>> I do have a question about the version #. IIUC, we are releasing 7.0.0 >>>>> prior to the TC community. There may be fixes applied to the Tomcat dev >>>>> tree >>>>> prior to their 7.0 release. So, this release may not exactly match the >>>>> functionality of the tomcat release. Is everyone evaluating that in their >>>>> decision? >>>>> >>>>> --kevan >>>> >>>> >>>> I think there are two many zeros in the version number too. How about we >>>> use a version number similar to "6.0.18-G678601" like we have in G 2.x >>>> builds? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Vamsi >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ivan >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Lei Wang (Rex) >> rwonly AT apache.org >> > > > > -- > Ivan > -- Ivan
