On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:44 AM, ant elder<ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for reviewing. With the things already fix and if we can fix > most of these today how about we aim for doing an RC2 tomorrow, and > that will give a little more time for anyone else to review/update as > well. Some comments in line...
+1 > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Simon Laws<simonsl...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >> Binary >> samples/calculator-rmi-service won't compile or run using ant > > I've tried this building with Ant and it looks like it works for me, > what is the problem you see? I'll look a little closer and try and find out what's up > >> dosgi-* - are we supposed to be shipping these. No README, not sure >> what to do with them. If so update samples/README also > > I guess a question is must there be doc for things that get included > in a release? That doesn't sound like such a bad thing to require but > right now theres not doc for _lots_ of things so if we enforced it > we'd have to pull a lot from M3. So at this stage and as we didnt > require this for previous releases how about letting this go for M3? Yes, this is not a blocker for M3. Would be nice to know what I'm supposed to do though;-) > >> are we just shipping with mvn poms for samples/webapp? > > Yes thats what i was thinking to do for this release. I don't think we > have a very good story yet for non-Maven building. One solution would > be to have the webapps built for an SCA enabled runtime like the > tomcat or geronimo integration and so not include any tuscany jars, > but i think its too late to sort this our for M2 so happy to just have > the maven builds for now. Ok, so we just need to sort out the parent pom in this case. > > ...ant >
