To support the upcoming Geronimo milestone release, I would like to
release Java EE 6 versions of the geronimo specifications.  This is a single 
vote
for all specs new or updated for Java EE 6.  In addition, the specs have been 
updated
with common support for OSGi interactions.  The RAT and IANAL plugins have been 
run against
of the projects.  All non-beta specs have clean TCK signature tests.

 Vote will be open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1 approve
 [ ] +0  no opinion
 [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
Staging repo:
 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-024/

Unless noted, the source repos are relative to location

 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/

and have the same final element as the artifact name.

I am not listing each location individually because the mailing list server 
rejected my
original email as spam because of the large number of links in the email.  I 
apologize for the incovenience.
The following specs are being voted on

 geronimo-activation_1.1_spec-1.0.3
 geronimo-annotation_1.1_spec-1.0
 geronimo-atinject_1.0_spec-1.0
 geronimo-ejb_3.1_spec-1.0
 geronimo-el_2.2_spec-1.0
 geronimo-interceptor_1.1_spec-1.0
 geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.6_spec-1.0
 geronimo-jacc_1.4_spec-1.0
 geronimo-jaspic_1.0_spec-1.0
 geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec-1.0.1
 geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec-1.0.7

and the closely associated provider and uber jar releases.

 geronimo-javamail_1.4-1.0.8

    Source location:
     geronimo/javamail/tags/geronimo-javamail_1.4-1.0.8

 geronimo-jaxb_2.2_spec-1.0
 geronimo-jaxr_1.0_spec-2.0.1
 geronimo-jaxrpc_1.1_spec-2.0.1
 geronimo-jaxrs_1.1_spec-1.0
 geronimo-jaxws_2.2_spec-1.0
 geronimo-jcdi_1.0_spec-1.0
 geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.1.1
 geronimo-jsp_2.2_spec-1.0
 geronimo-osgi-support-1.0
 geronimo-saaj_1.3_spec-1.0.2
 geronimo-servlet_3.0_spec-1.0
 geronimo-stax-api_1.2_spec-1.0
 geronimo-validation_1.0_spec-1.0.1
 geronimo-ws-metadata_2.0_spec-1.1.3

 geronimo-ccpp_1.0_spec-1.0-beta (this is a beta version that has not been 
verified via TCK yet)

Reply via email to