I promote the artifacts according to the instructions on the release-plugin site, but I did not find them in the centry repository maven2, would they be synched automatically ? Or any other steps I need to do ? Thanks !
2010/5/8 Ivan <[email protected]> > 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 > -- Ivan
