Alan,
Are you asking for Matt to change the subject line of the vote? That
would be appropriate. Something like "[Vote] Release Geronimo 1.1
based on 1.1-rc1"
Or were you not aware of what you were voting on? The note states:
Your voting and feedback are for:
Geronimo 1.1
DayTrader 1.1
Specs 1.1
--kevan
On Jun 12, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
We vote for release candidates? I don't recall doing that before.
+1
Regards,
Alan
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I apologize for resending this to the lists. I inadvertantly did
not put [vote] in the subject line so it may not have been
apparent. The remainder of this e-mail is the same content that
was distributed last night.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Over the past few days the outstanding issues that were raised
about the first candidate have been addressed.
They were that we were missing the LICENSE.txt as well as Notices
from the distribution. I added them. Guillaume also pointed out
that he noted that there should be a Third Party Notices. This
was not included in the original 1.0 or previous distributions so
I did not follow it up. Thoughts?
Also, the 1.0 release notes were removed and updated the thread
started by Hernan. The Wiki has been updated and the wiki was
the source used to create the RELEASE-NOTES-1.1.txt file you will
find in the build.
To avoid issues with the version number and the plugins I used
rc1 which Aaron had added in the plugins for supported versions
so I trust that works here.
JSisson addressed the problem with not being able to run Geronimo
under CygWin and Kevan worked with Aaron to address a new
deployment problem that left partially deployed artifacts in the
repository.
I have taken this build and run some performance tests on it and
we are significantly better in 1.1 than we were in 1.0. We have
a lot of improvement left for CMP EJBs. It appears that the
performance improvements in the EJB tier has changed a race
condition when running under DB2. I'm afraid that the only way
to address the problem is to add a new feature to TranQL and OEJB
that allow for the specification of Isolation Levels for
individual beans. This is a relatively simple change but the
build as it stands is specification compliant. I would prefer to
let this release go forward since CMP 2.1 EJBs are not nearly as
common as the other J2EE components. I would like to address
this in 1.1.1 however I don't think we've locked down whether
that would be allowed or not. The change would affect TranQL and
OpenEJB so they are really included components so I'd be
interested in people's feedback.
So please accept a named RC1. Your voting and feedback are for:
Geronimo 1.1
DayTrader 1.1
Specs 1.1
The vote will stand for 72 hours. Issues raised will be
discussed and if we conclude that there is a bug that must be
addressed then we will mitigate the problem and respin a new rc
for a 72 hour vote.
If this is accepted all three of the above components will be
released simultaneously.
Here are the builds for your review and comment:
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-
rc1.tar.gz
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-j2ee-1.1-
rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-j2ee-1.1-
rc1.tar.gz
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-romcat-j2ee-1.1-
rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-
rc1.tar.gz
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-jetty-minimal-1.1-
rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-
minimal-1.1-rc1.tar.gz
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/geronimo-tomcat-
minimal-1.1-rc1.zip
http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/rc1/daytrader-ear-1.1-rc1.zip
Looking forward to your comments and feedback.
