On Nov 18, 2006, at 2:41 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Is anyone gonna look at this?
I'd really like to nuke this branch and the all_changes.log (and
pending-merge-log.sh).
Lets not go another week with this unresolved... plz.
--jason
On Nov 9, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
I went
Kevan,
I have looked at all the files modified in the revision 389206. All the
functionality from that revision is intact in trunk and branches\1.2. That
revision is no longer relevant and all_changes.log can now be removed.
--vamsi
On 11/28/06, Kevan Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
So, can we nuke all_changes.log and branches/dead-1.2 now?
--jason
On Nov 28, 2006, at 11:53 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
Kevan,
I have looked at all the files modified in the revision 389206.
All the functionality from that revision is intact in trunk and
branches\1.2. That
On Nov 28, 2006, at 7:11 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
So, can we nuke all_changes.log and branches/dead-1.2 now?
Yes. I say remove 'em.
Vamsi,
Thanks for looking through those changes.
--kevan
Its gone.
--jason
On Nov 28, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Nov 28, 2006, at 7:11 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
So, can we nuke all_changes.log and branches/dead-1.2 now?
Yes. I say remove 'em.
Vamsi,
Thanks for looking through those changes.
--kevan
Is anyone gonna look at this?
I'd really like to nuke this branch and the all_changes.log (and
pending-merge-log.sh).
Lets not go another week with this unresolved... plz.
--jason
On Nov 9, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
I went thru all_changes.log and for each remaining item
I went thru all_changes.log and for each remaining item marked Not
Merged I verified that it is either already in trunk or is
unnecessary. I marked r389206 as merged because I think all the parts
that trunk needs are there but if someone has a min could you please
double check it?
Best wishes,
On 11/3/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not surprised. Can you merge them?
done
Also, Aaron has many merges
left in the dead-1.2 branch that may affect the console. You can see
them by running the following command in the server/trunk directory:
grep Not Merged
On 11/7/06, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK I'll take a look and start cranking through the list. Aaron please
raise a flag if you want me to hold off.
No, be my guest -- clearly I haven't gotten around to it. :)
Thanks,
Aaron
Just be aware that any of the changes that affect config.xml or other
non-Java files (keystores or whatever) probably need to be applied to
the TCK configuration as well.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 11/7/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/7/06, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK
I'm not surprised. Can you merge them? Also, Aaron has many merges
left in the dead-1.2 branch that may affect the console. You can see
them by running the following command in the server/trunk directory:
grep Not Merged all_changes.log
-dain
On Nov 2, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Paul McMahan
I just uploaded a new weekly release here:
http://people.apache.org/dist/geronimo/unstable/1.2-r470164/
Please spend a few minutes trying it out.
-dain
OK I had a hunch something might break but I figured I would ask
anyway just in case there was a way. For now I can probably
manufacture a reasonable test env on my local machine but as the
server gets more componentized as plugins I think it will become more
important to test the system as a
On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
OK I had a hunch something might break but I figured I would ask
anyway just in case there was a way. For now I can probably
manufacture a reasonable test env on my local machine but as the
server gets more componentized as plugins I think it
On 11/2/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
OK I had a hunch something might break but I figured I would ask
anyway just in case there was a way. For now I can probably
manufacture a reasonable test env on my local machine but as the
I checked out the weekly build and found some problems that were fixed
in the 1.1 branch. One is the tomcat logging that was fixed in rev
415233 and another was the database portlet problem fixed in rev
412804. I'm also suspicious that the problem Jason found in the JMS
server portlet could be
One of the activities to coordinate when finalizing the release is
updating the 1.2 plugin repository catalog at:
http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins/geronimo-1.2/geronimo-plugins.xml
to point at a repo where the 1.2 artifacts are published instead of
the snapshot repo it currently points at. For
On Oct 31, 2006, at 10:47 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
IMO, fixing the startup time of the web console config under jetty
(see GERONIMO-2507) is a must fix...
Does that mean you are going to fix it?
Happy to, when I have enough time. Does
On Nov 1, 2006, at 7:14 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Oct 31, 2006, at 10:47 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
IMO, fixing the startup time of the web console config under
jetty (see GERONIMO-2507) is a must fix...
Does that mean you are going to fix
It isn't really possible to publish a 1.2 release like that. It
would break lots of stuff (like maven) that assumes that there will
only ever be a single 1.2 release. Why can't you test against a 1.2-
timestamp release?
-dain
On Nov 1, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Paul McMahan wrote:
One of the
I would say that the startup and shutdown sequences should not show
any Log4J log output or stack traces, tested under both JDK 1.4 and
JDK 1.5. Also, all current functionality in all portlets in the
console should work as expected. And the deploy tool should be able
to deploy, undeploy, and
On Oct 30, 2006, at 11:32 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
In a typical Geronimo release we tend to spend a significant amount
of time in what I'll call the Fit and Finish phase. This
involves tying up loose ends such as log levels, tools LF, startup
times, licenses and so on. Basically, the
On Oct 31, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
IMO, fixing the startup time of the web console config under jetty
(see GERONIMO-2507) is a must fix...
Does that mean you are going to fix it?
-dain
On Oct 31, 2006, at 4:25 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I would say that the startup and shutdown sequences should not show
any Log4J log output or stack traces, tested under both JDK 1.4 and
JDK 1.5.
I fixed some of the amq logging problems today (their package name
changed so log4j needed
In a typical Geronimo release we tend to spend a significant amount
of time in what I'll call the Fit and Finish phase. This involves
tying up loose ends such as log levels, tools LF, startup times,
licenses and so on. Basically, the phase includes fixing all the
nits that cause people
On 10/31/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a typical Geronimo release we tend to spend a significant amount
of time in what I'll call the Fit and Finish phase. This involves
tying up loose ends such as log levels, tools LF, startup times,
licenses and so on. Basically, the phase
On Oct 30, 2006, at 10:07 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 10/31/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a typical Geronimo release we tend to spend a significant amount
of time in what I'll call the Fit and Finish phase. This involves
tying up loose ends such as log levels, tools LF,
27 matches
Mail list logo
