It takes several hours for the sync to central to happen. They should be visible on the release repo on apache nexus immediately.
thanks david jencks On May 8, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Ivan wrote: > 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
