Rainer Jung wrote:
Mark Thomas schrieb:
According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[X] Stable
Any more votes for 4.1.39? We still need another +1 to do the release.
Mark
-
To
According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[X] Stable
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Thomas schrieb:
According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[X] Stable
Regards,
Rainer
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
Mark Thomas wrote:
The source tarball and other packages are available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/
According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[X] Stable
Mark
Mark Thomas schrieb:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
I meant where to find the tag directory for the release 4.1.39.
It is in your inbox. Look at the svn commit messages.
Which all seem to be against trunk, i.e. not a tag.
I meant the
The source tarball and other packages are available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/
According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[ ] Stable
Cheers,
Mark
-
To
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source tarball and other packages are available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/
According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is:
[X] Broken
The sigs and hashes don't agree with their targets, except
On 19/11/2008, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source tarball and other packages are available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/
According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is:
[X] Broken
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source tarball and other packages are available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/
According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is:
[X] Broken
The sigs and hashes don't agree with their
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source tarball and other packages are available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/
According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag
On 19/11/2008, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source tarball and other packages are available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had network troubles during the upload and I had to retry several times.
I thought it completed without error but it looks like
apache-tomcat-4.1.39-LE-jdk14.exe got corrupted during the upload. The MD5
and sig is correct.
sebb wrote:
Sorry, just discovered the problem.
The key id is not 33C60243 (as reported by GPGV); it is 0x33C60243.
I'll know next time...
Yep - that'll be the problem. When you search for key IDs you always have
to use hexadecimal format and prefix the id with 0x (note zero, not the
letter
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Sorry, just discovered the problem.
The key id is not 33C60243 (as reported by GPGV); it is 0x33C60243.
I'll know next time...
Yep - that'll be the problem. When you search for key IDs you always have
to use
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had network troubles during the upload and I had to retry several times.
I thought it completed without error but it looks like
apache-tomcat-4.1.39-LE-jdk14.exe got
On 19/11/2008, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source tarball and other packages are available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/
I just ran RAT on the source archive.
There are a lot of source files that
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source tarball and other packages are available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/
I just ran RAT on the source archive.
There are a lot of
sebb wrote:
However, there are several binary files that are different:
connectors/jni/native/os/win32/logmessages.bin
connectors/procrun/bin.../tomcat*.exe
This suggests a packaging error - perhaps these bin files were
incorrectly formatted to correct the line-endings?
Looks like. I'll
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source tarball and other packages are available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
However, there are several binary files that are different:
connectors/jni/native/os/win32/logmessages.bin
connectors/procrun/bin.../tomcat*.exe
This suggests a packaging error - perhaps these bin files were
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source tarball and other packages are available here:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source tarball and other packages are
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/11/2008, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/11/2008,
24 matches
Mail list logo