Changing to use http instead of https fixes...
But something recently changed at the haus.
anonymous svn acces on the haus is limited to http now.
-chris
Jason Dillon wrote:
On Jul 20, 2006, at 10:02 PM, John Sisson wrote:
It built successfully for me in cygwin (first attempt failed in timer
tests). I'll try to do some tests on the weekend.
Timer tests are known to fail on slower or more resource constrained
systems. All of the failures
On Jul 21, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
I find it very hard to believe that we are going to spend time to
setup
the TCK to run on sandbox/svkmerge/m2migration.
How does this differ from what you are doing today with the G
codebase?
Sorry, I do not understand what you are
On Jul 21, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Based on this note and the others it sounds like the build is
working and that you are suggesting a temporary blackout period
when the migration is completed. During the migration period the
Maven 1 build will no longer work so we will
FYI... windows users should extract the assembly dist into c:\ to
avoid long file issues. Looks like the longest file in the dist is
about 218c (including the basedir name), so extracting into c:\
should avoid any issues on the evil platform of names that must be
short.
If anyone
Jason Dillon wrote:
John, if you can please post the surefire reports for the failed tests
in timer so I can verify they are indeed related to GERONIMO-2183 (and
unrelated to the m2 work).
Unfortunately I didn't keep the reports from when it failed. I assumed
it was due to other stuff
Yes, I just started seeing that too... not sure wtf is going on...
Changing to use http instead of https fixes...
But something recently changed at the haus.
--jason
On Jul 21, 2006, at 6:01 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Jason Dillon wrote:
John, if you can please post the surefire reports for
Unfortunately I didn't keep the reports from when it failed. I
assumed it was due to other stuff running on my machine
(Thunderbird seems to be looping a lot lately consuming most of the
cpu).
No worries, I'm 99% sure they failed in a harmless way to due to lack
of cpu availability for
Any other PMC members want to comment on this?
--jason
On 7/18/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good news... we are almost there. Bad news... it will probably take
another week or so get everything *fully* functional.
Right now we have a functional Jetty J2EE assembly, which almost
IMHO, until its all completely functional and working, I would not wage
a +1 for moving it in and deprecating 1.0. If you are interested in
moving in POMs and plugins, then I would be amenable to that. However,
I would not at all be amenable to any sort of deprecation until the M2
build is 100%
On Jul 20, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
IMHO, until its all completely functional and working, I would not
wage
a +1 for moving it in and deprecating 1.0. If you are interested in
moving in POMs and plugins, then I would be amenable to that.
However,
I would not at all be
Jason,
I would give you a +0 at this point.
You asked what does 100% cover? Based on your description, you said you
had Jetty working but not Tomcat, unless I read that wrong. IMHO, that
is not acceptable to begin deprecating M1.
100% to me means that I can, from the top of the G tree...with
I would give you a +0 at this point.
You asked what does 100% cover? Based on your description, you
said you
had Jetty working but not Tomcat, unless I read that wrong. IMHO,
that
is not acceptable to begin deprecating M1.
Jetty and Tomcat J2EE and Minimal all work as of yesterday.
Jason Dillon wrote:
I would give you a +0 at this point.
You asked what does 100% cover? Based on your description, you said you
had Jetty working but not Tomcat, unless I read that wrong. IMHO, that
is not acceptable to begin deprecating M1.
Jetty and Tomcat J2EE and Minimal all work
Jetty and Tomcat J2EE and Minimal all work as of yesterday.
Ok...well...based on your statement before, you did not clarify this.
If I can get an assembly, then this is good.
The work has been moving fast. At the time of the initial Maven2
Conversation Status there was an issue, but it was
It built successfully for me in cygwin (first attempt failed in timer
tests). I'll try to do some tests on the weekend.
I agree with Jeff's comments that we should have this pass the TCK
before it is merged back to trunk.
Thanks,
John
Jason Dillon wrote:
This should do the trick:
svn
On Jul 20, 2006, at 10:02 PM, John Sisson wrote:
It built successfully for me in cygwin (first attempt failed in
timer tests). I'll try to do some tests on the weekend.
Timer tests are known to fail on slower or more resource constrained
systems. All of the failures should be expected
John, if you can please post the surefire reports for the failed
tests in timer so I can verify they are indeed related to
GERONIMO-2183 (and unrelated to the m2 work).
Thanks,
--jason
On Jul 20, 2006, at 10:02 PM, John Sisson wrote:
It built successfully for me in cygwin (first attempt
On 7/19/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we get some commitment from PMC members to review and vote in
these changes so that we can finally finish the move to Maven 2?
I'm on holidays in 2 weeks and would be happy to help out as much as
it requires to get it tested and merged
This should do the trick:
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/
svkmerge/m2migration
cd m2migration
./bootstrap
gunzip -c m2-assemblies/geronimo-jetty-j2ee/target/geronimo-
jetty-j2ee-1.2-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz | tar xf -
inline..
--- Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good news... we are almost there. Bad news... it will probably take
another week or so get everything *fully* functional.
Right now we have a functional Jetty J2EE assembly, which almost all
components enabled. Tomcat J2EE assembly
Inline -
On 7/19/06, anita kulshreshtha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
inline..
--- Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is my opinion that we should probably start the RTC process now
for merging the svkmerge/m2migration branch to trunk and to deprecate
the Maven 1 build... and nuke its
the Maven 1 build... and nuke its build files.
Is this necessary? It is a nice thing to have during bug fixes.
Yes this is necessary. We already have had several commits to trunk
that changed Maven 1 configurations and skipped Maven 2... the longer
we have both systems in place the
We should submit 3 patches for RTC -
1. One from the branch
2. One with packaging plugin and configs made from the trunk
3. One with assembly plugin and Assemblies made from the trunk
The patches 2 and 3 can be reviewed and tested independently
of 1.
IMO this is the only way to keep the
On 7/19/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not plan on submitting a patch for RTC. I can produce a rather
nasty diff of the trees for review if that is what the PMC wants, but
IMO that would be a waste of time for them to review. Instead I
suggest that the review be done by
What I expect is to check out the svkmerge/m2conversion branch and
diff it against the trunk, then review the changes, apply them to my
local trunk copy and give it a whirl. If it works, it will receive my
+1.
Good luck ;-)
I would encourage you (and others) to try the build from the branch
On 7/20/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would encourage you (and others) to try the build from the branch
first. If you feel the need to diff that is fine, though we will
probably be merging this change back, not patching.
That's exactly what I had in mind, I believe. I'm going
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/20/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would encourage you (and others) to try the build from the branch
first. If you feel the need to diff that is fine, though we will
probably be merging this change back, not patching.
28 matches
Mail list logo
