David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:08 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:54 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 7/7/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I still believe there is value getting the state of OpenEJB at tagged
level and accessing it with m:co. Here is an example...
I am trying to research some classloading issues regarding OpenEJB and
Geronimo 1.1. It behooves me to have source level access to both
OpenEJB and Geronimo for the state of the Geronimo 1.1 release so I
can
accurately debug the problem. It would be nice to have the m:co
checkout the tagged version of OpenEJB since we are not really
supposed
to have any snapshots in there.
I'll do you one even better, Jeff ...
I've just discovered that geronimo/tags/1.1.0 depends on openejb 2.1
branch which depends on geronimo-1.1.1-SNAPSHOT.
Right, geronimo-1.1-SNAPSHOT (not 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT).
This means that any
user with a clean environment who is interested in building Geronimo
1.1 from source and somehow figures out that Geronimo 1.1resides in
geronimo/tags/1.1.0 and follows the bulid instructions on the wiki
will wind up with the following error:
I'm fine documenting this as long as it's made completely clear it
isn't at all necessary. One can build Geronimo just fine when
skipping the optional 'm:co' step.
Those are missing deps on Geronimo 1.1.1 while building Geronimo 1.1.
In other words, geronimo/tags/1.1.0 is permanently broken. IMO, this
issue is worse than we originally thought.
Not that I don't agree it's a screwed up situation, but
geronimo/tags/1.1.0 is perfectly fine -- building openejb is
optional. It's openejb/tags/v2_1/ that's permanently broken. In
fact all the openejb 2x tags are broken in exactly the same way. All
openejb 2.x releases are cut before Geronimo releases so a given
Geronimo release doesn't have to have a snapshot dependency on openejb.
To fix this issue, I changed m:checkout to grab the openejb 2.1 tag.
Then I changed the geronimo_version in my local copy of the openejb
2.1 tag from 1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1. After this, Geronimo 1.1 built
successfully for me.
At a minimum this solution should be documented in the appropriate
locations. Maximally, we should consider fixing 1.1.
What would you recommend?
I think that we need to release like this:
geronimo jars (and possibly non-openejb configs) (possibly also
non-openejb assemblies such as minimal)
openejb jars (and possibly openejb configs)
other configs (???? perhaps these should all be independently released
plugins)
assemblies.
I don't think we can realistically do this on the 1.1/2.1 branches but
it might be a realistic goal for 1.2/2.2
Do you think that things could be simplified if we broke up Geronimo
into separate "product lines" instead of having a trunk that's a big
bucket-o-stuff?
Regards,
Alan
