back in the land of confusion....
what I am trying to say since the beginning is this.
please use the RabbitHole branch for ALL NEW FEATURES. Patches that needs
to go in the 2.3/2.4 branches are to be commited there as well. Of course
this fix you are talking about should be incorporated in BOTH branches...
although I will defer to Scott as he controls what goes in the maintenance
releases.
If I understand the discussion with Scott correctly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) the
2.2.x series is done and the next one will be a 2.4 version.
The 2.4 version and the 3.0 will need to have the same fixes and patches,
3.0 will need to have the enhancements.
pfffffff versioning incorporates so many artificial problems :)
let's not loose our heads on just 2 branches and to all that COMMIT FROM NOW
ON REMEMBER THAT WE NEED THE 2 BRANCHES TO GROW IN PARALLEL FOR THE FIXES...
Scott, can you explain it for these people as well? Also feel free to
correct me if anything wasn't accurate
marcf
|-----Original Message-----
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill
|Burke
|Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:00 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] FW: Busy wait on one thread
|
|
|Cool,
|
|The mainline is 2.4? What happened to 2.3? Anyways, I'll check this code
|in as soon as I figure out how to use WinCVS with SourceForge(I'm
|looking at
|Simone's directions from the dev-list archives). Hey, my first
|checkin!(Well isn't that SPEciAaaal?!).
|
|Bill
|
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
|> fleury
|> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 2:33 PM
|> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] FW: Busy wait on one thread
|>
|>
|>
|>
|> |-----Original Message-----
|> |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan
|> |Christopherson
|> |Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 2:01 PM
|> |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> |Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] FW: Busy wait on one thread
|> |
|> |
|> |On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Bill Burke wrote:
|> |
|> |>
|> |> Again, IMHO, these race condition fixes can't wait until JBoss
|> |3.0 since it
|> |> sounds like 3.0 won't be ready until August/September?
|> |>
|> |
|> |I agree with Bill here - the race condition fix really does
|need to be in
|> |2.4 (maybe even 2.2.x). 3.0 Should get a more aggressive rewrite of the
|> |synchronization interceptor (multiple instances per bean, etc.)
|>
|> yeah yeah yeah....
|>
|> get the code in, of course 2.4 should be patched.
|>
|> marcf
|>
|>
|>
|> |
|> |-danch
|> |
|> |
|> |_______________________________________________
|> |Jboss-development mailing list
|> |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> |http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
|>
|>
|> _______________________________________________
|> Jboss-development mailing list
|> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
|>
|
|
|
|_______________________________________________
|Jboss-development mailing list
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
