On 08.07.2010 01:14, sebb wrote:
On 7 July 2010 21:19, Rainer Jungrainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 07.07.2010 21:00, sebb wrote:
On 7 July 2010 10:47, Rainer Jungrainer.j...@kippdata.dewrote:
On 29.06.2010 17:17, jean-frederic clere wrote:
- build.properties: it would be nice, if
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 08.07.2010 01:14, sebb wrote:
On 7 July 2010 21:19, Rainer Jungrainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 07.07.2010 21:00, sebb wrote:
On 7 July 2010 10:47, Rainer Jungrainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 29.06.2010
On 8 July 2010 16:22, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 08.07.2010 01:14, sebb wrote:
On 7 July 2010 21:19, Rainer Jungrainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 07.07.2010 21:00, sebb wrote:
On 7 July 2010 10:47,
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 July 2010 16:22, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
IIUC, it means the tag would not refer to any trunk revision.
Strictly speaking, yes, there is no exact match in trunk, because the
version fixes are deliberately not
2010/7/7 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
Or:
Create clean workspace from SVN.
Make any necessary updates that apply to the tag only.
Create the tag from the workspace using svn copy dir https://.../
Trunk is then untainted by unnecessary changes, and the tag commit
e-mail shows the changes made.
On 8 July 2010 17:57, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 July 2010 16:22, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
IIUC, it means the tag would not refer to any trunk revision.
Strictly speaking, yes, there is no exact
2010/6/30 jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com:
Due to bugs (49445 and 49424) and as I was not able to finish the
release process quickly (because of working remotely) and as releases
are cheap we would like to abandon 6.0.27 and propose the vote for 6.0.28
The candidates binaries are
On 29.06.2010 17:17, jean-frederic clere wrote:
According to the release process, the 6.0.28 build corresponding to the
tag TOMCAT_6_0_28 is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[X] Stable
+++
Comments?
- MD5 OK
- signatures OK
- as Konstantin noted: it would be nice if you added your key to the
On 7 July 2010 10:47, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 29.06.2010 17:17, jean-frederic clere wrote:
According to the release process, the 6.0.28 build corresponding to the
tag TOMCAT_6_0_28 is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[X] Stable
+++
Comments?
- MD5 OK
- signatures
On 07.07.2010 21:00, sebb wrote:
On 7 July 2010 10:47, Rainer Jungrainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 29.06.2010 17:17, jean-frederic clere wrote:
- build.properties: it would be nice, if you did the release changes to the
file before tagging (and undo after) like Mark does for TC 7
On 7 July 2010 21:19, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 07.07.2010 21:00, sebb wrote:
On 7 July 2010 10:47, Rainer Jungrainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 29.06.2010 17:17, jean-frederic clere wrote:
- build.properties: it would be nice, if you did the release changes to
the
2010/6/29 jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com:
Due to bugs (49445 and 49424) and as I was not able to finish the
release process quickly (because of working remotely) and as releases
are cheap we would like to abandon 6.0.27 and propose the vote for 6.0.28
The candidates binaries are
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:33 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 06/30/2010 05:20 AM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
2010/6/29 jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com:
Due to bugs (49445 and 49424) and as I was not able to finish the
release process quickly (because of working remotely) and as releases
On 06/30/2010 05:20 AM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
2010/6/29 jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com:
Due to bugs (49445 and 49424) and as I was not able to finish the
release process quickly (because of working remotely) and as releases
are cheap we would like to abandon 6.0.27 and propose the
Due to bugs (49445 and 49424) and as I was not able to finish the
release process quickly (because of working remotely) and as releases
are cheap we would like to abandon 6.0.27 and propose the vote for 6.0.28
The candidates binaries are available here:
On 29 June 2010 16:17, jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Due to bugs (49445 and 49424) and as I was not able to finish the
release process quickly (because of working remotely) and as releases
are cheap we would like to abandon 6.0.27 and propose the vote for 6.0.28
The candidates
On 29/06/2010 18:24, sebb wrote:
On 29 June 2010 16:17, jean-frederic clerejfcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Due to bugs (49445 and 49424) and as I was not able to finish the
release process quickly (because of working remotely) and as releases
are cheap we would like to abandon 6.0.27 and propose the
From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release build 6.0.28
Starts up OK, able to enter Tomcat Manager, however click on
/manager - i.e. http://localhost:8080/manager/ - and I get:
type Status report
message /manager/
description The requested resource (/manager
2010/6/29 jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com:
Due to bugs (49445 and 49424) and as I was not able to finish the
release process quickly (because of working remotely) and as releases
are cheap we would like to abandon 6.0.27 and propose the vote for 6.0.28
The candidates binaries are
19 matches
Mail list logo
