At this point, I am not really sure. We can always easily move them around.
If you have or can envision a lot of CLI tests, we can create a
separate testsuite for it. This separate testsuite won't have to
start/stop selenium server too since it is cmdline.
If you want to drop it under deployment-
Where were you thinking? Should we start a new subdirectory for cmdline
tests? Or could it go under deployment-testsuite?
-Donald
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> Good catch Donald. Can you please throw in a small test(s) in our
> testsuite framework so that we can catch things like this ? There are
>
Good catch Donald. Can you please throw in a small test(s) in our
testsuite framework so that we can catch things like this ? There are
a lot of tests there already that can act as a template/example and
help you with your testcase.
Let me know if you need more help.
Cheers
Prasad
On 8/13/07, Do
Verified that the fixes address the security bug Donald has identified. No
regression is observed in case of GERONIMO-2266 and GERONIMO-2267. I
suggest others verify any scenarios they can think of for possible
regression.
Vamsi
On 8/14/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've now f
I've now fixed GERONIMO-3407 in trunk, rev 565657. I added new
methods to ContextManager and removed direct use of LoginContext.
Among other things this may make implementing jaspi slightly easier.
New methods are:
public static LoginContext login(String realm, CallbackHandler
callbac
On 8/14/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think I've fixed GERONIMO-3404 and GERONIMO-3406 in trunk, rev
> 565599. It might be a good idea for this to get a review before we
> port it to branches/2.0 and possibly branches/2.0.x.
We may also want to make sure GERONIMO-2266, GERONI
David,
Though there are a few other minor fixes (that may not come in the way of
TCK, for e.g. R565355) that I would have wanted in 2.0.1, I felt that this
may not be the right time to bring up those as we may not "any" additional
delays in getting 2.0.1 out, perhaps we may have to think about a 2
On Aug 13, 2007, at 9:27 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I think I've fixed GERONIMO-3404 and GERONIMO-3406 in trunk, rev
565599. It might be a good idea for this to get a review before we
port it to branches/2.0 and possibly branches/2.0.x.
I'm looking things over now... May take me a bit... Eas
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/
+1 to option 2.
Let's get 2.0.1 out of the door ASAP.
Cheers
Prasad
On 8/13/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
I think I've fixed GERONIMO-3404 and GERONIMO-3406 in trunk, rev
565599. It might be a good idea for this to get a review before we
port it to branches/2.0 and possibly branches/2.0.x.
I haven't decided how to fix GERONIMO-3407 yet, and could be talked
out of it for 2.0.1. The problem woul
Matt,
We could at least release/publish the transaction and connector bits, right?
Jarek
On 8/13/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> com
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 si
+1 to option #2
Cheers!
Anita
--- Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 serve
On Aug 13, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
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. Bas
+1 to option 2
Joe
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 a
Here is the link to the dev site home page with the latest update
http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxSITE/
within the next hour geronimo.apache.org should get updated.
Cheers!
Hernan
Hernan Cunico wrote:
+1 for option 2, it seems the quickest one.
I just put the "News" out, it takes some time to ge
+1 for option 2, it seems the quickest one.
I just put the "News" out, it takes some time to get propagated.
Cheers!
Hernan
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
comma
On Aug 13, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
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.
+1 for option 2
Best wishes,
Paul
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
+1 for option 2
+1 for option 2.
Jarek
On 8/13/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> Th
At this point, we will want to get a release out fast and address only those
issues (like the security bug Donald has found and hopefully only this) that
are blocker.
+1 to option 2, create branches\2.0.1 from tags\2.0.0.
Vamsi
On 8/14/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Ea
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 relea
24 matches
Mail list logo
