+1
Jason and I also ran the jaspic tck (which is separate from the javaee
tck). After a little reconfiguration the servlet profile tests all
pass.
I'd like to call the vote soon, if you would like to vote please do so
soon.
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 10, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Jason Warner wrote:
+1 from me. I built the server and then ran the full tck
successfully.
~Jason Warner
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Rick McGuire <rick...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I was sort of waiting for a decision on whether those couple of
problems raised in the discuss thread were blockers or not. I guess
they're not, so here's my +1 too.
Rick
Kevan Miller wrote:
Here's my +1.
I reviewed the source and binaries in
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-043/org/apache/geronimo/
--kevan
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:56 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I've managed to come up with a 2nd 2.2 release candidate built using
the maven-release-plugin.
This includes Kevan;s fixes of source headers and a warning removal.
See the jira issues here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10220&styleName=Html&version=12312965
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10220&styleName=Html&version=12312965
>
Staged to
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-043/
<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-024
>
The main artifacts up for vote are the source release archives
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-043/org/apache/geronimo/geronimo/2.2/geronimo-2.2-source-release.tar.gz
<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-024/org/apache/geronimo/geronimo/2.2/geronimo-2.2-source-release.tar.gz
>
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-043/org/apache/geronimo/geronimo/2.2/geronimo-2.2-source-release.zip
<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-024/org/apache/geronimo/geronimo/2.2/geronimo-2.2-source-release.zip
>
If you vote you should at least examine these and make sure
something plausible builds from them.
[ ] +1 about time to push this out the door
[ ] 0 no opinion
[ ] -1 not this one (please explain why)
Many thanks
david jencks
