[CANCELLED] Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
I'll redo the release with the updated license headers and I expect the warning fix. thanks david jencks On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:27 AM, David Jencks wrote: If you mean the previous main geronimo releases, I strongly disagree. We have no reason I can see to avoid following maven defaults here. With the exception of the main geronimo release, previously done through an arcane and IMO incomprehensible process, everything we've released in the last year or so has used the release plugin default tag locations of -. I favor consistency with past releases. So, fall on the other side of the fence. Following maven's default is simply following an arbitrary decision that maven made. 'geronimo-2.2' seems to hold little value to anyone... All that said, I'm not going to argue with you. Once the source problems (that I've fixed in branches/2.2) are fixed, looks like I'll be +1. Until then, I'm -1. I've also added a work-around to avoid the annoying WARN log messages from DWR in branches/2.2. See http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=885952&view=rev Wouldn't mind seeing that picked up, but it's not necessary... --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
I had more tries with different JREs. Below are the findings - IBM Java 5: always see the exception IBM Java 6: OK Sun Java 5: OK Sun Java 6: OK So it could be a problem in IBM Java 5. So I don't see this as a blocker for G 2.2. -Jack On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:01 AM, Jack Cai wrote: > > > There might be something wired with my machine, but I'm seeing the below > error when starting the release candidate in Windows XP with IBM JDK 1.5. > > Discover anything new about this? I had no problems on Mac OS with either > Java 5 or 6. > > --kevan > >
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:01 AM, Jack Cai wrote: > There might be something wired with my machine, but I'm seeing the below > error when starting the release candidate in Windows XP with IBM JDK 1.5. Discover anything new about this? I had no problems on Mac OS with either Java 5 or 6. --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:27 AM, David Jencks wrote: > > If you mean the previous main geronimo releases, I strongly disagree. We > have no reason I can see to avoid following maven defaults here. With the > exception of the main geronimo release, previously done through an arcane and > IMO incomprehensible process, everything we've released in the last year or > so has used the release plugin default tag locations of > -. I favor consistency with past releases. So, fall on the other side of the fence. Following maven's default is simply following an arbitrary decision that maven made. 'geronimo-2.2' seems to hold little value to anyone... All that said, I'm not going to argue with you. Once the source problems (that I've fixed in branches/2.2) are fixed, looks like I'll be +1. Until then, I'm -1. I've also added a work-around to avoid the annoying WARN log messages from DWR in branches/2.2. See http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=885952&view=rev Wouldn't mind seeing that picked up, but it's not necessary... --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
There might be something wired with my machine, but I'm seeing the below error when starting the release candidate in Windows XP with IBM JDK 1.5. Module 59/75 org.apache.geronimo.configs/activemq-ra/2.2/car 2009-12-01 17:52:00,562 ERROR [OpenEjbSystemGBean] Unable to deploy mdb container org.apache.geronimo.configs/activemq-ra/2.2/car.ActiveMQ R A-javax.jms.MessageListener org.apache.xbean.propertyeditor.PropertyEditorException: Unable to find Property Editor for Object at org.apache.xbean.propertyeditor.PropertyEditors.getValue(PropertyEdit ors.java:290) at org.apache.xbean.recipe.RecipeHelper.convert(RecipeHelper.java:172) at org.apache.xbean.recipe.ObjectRecipe.extractConstructorArgs(ObjectRec ipe.java:592) at org.apache.xbean.recipe.ObjectRecipe.internalCreate(ObjectRecipe.java :275) at org.apache.xbean.recipe.AbstractRecipe.create(AbstractRecipe.java:96) at org.apache.xbean.recipe.AbstractRecipe.create(AbstractRecipe.java:61) at org.apache.xbean.recipe.AbstractRecipe.create(AbstractRecipe.java:49) at org.apache.openejb.assembler.classic.Assembler.createContainer(Assemb ler.java:987) at org.apache.geronimo.openejb.OpenEjbSystemGBean.addResourceAdapter(Ope nEjbSystemGBean.java:319) at org.apache.geronimo.openejb.OpenEjbSystemGBean.access$200(OpenEjbSyst emGBean.java:86) at org.apache.geronimo.openejb.OpenEjbSystemGBean$2.memberAdded(OpenEjbS ystemGBean.java:259) at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.ProxyCollection.addTarget(ProxyColl ection.java:102) at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanCollectionReference.targetAdde d(GBeanCollectionReference.java:96) at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanCollectionReference.addTarget( GBeanCollectionReference.java:180) at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanCollectionReference$1.running( GBeanCollectionReference.java:110) at org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.BasicLifecycleMonitor.fireRunningEve nt(BasicLifecycleMonitor.java:175) at org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.BasicLifecycleMonitor.access$300(Bas icLifecycleMonitor.java:44) at org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.BasicLifecycleMonitor$RawLifecycleBr oadcaster.fireRunningEvent(BasicLifecycleMonitor.java:253) at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstanceState.attemptFullStart (GBeanInstanceState.java:295) at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstanceState.start(GBeanInsta nceState.java:103) at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstanceState.startRecursive(G BeanInstanceState.java:125) at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.startRecursive(GBeanI nstance.java:539) at org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.BasicKernel.startRecursiveGBean(Basi cKernel.java:377) at org.apache.geronimo.kernel.config.ConfigurationUtil.startConfiguratio nGBeans(ConfigurationUtil.java:456) at org.apache.geronimo.kernel.config.KernelConfigurationManager.start(Ke rnelConfigurationManager.java:190) at org.apache.geronimo.kernel.config.SimpleConfigurationManager.startCon figuration(SimpleConfigurationManager.java:546) at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor25.invoke(Unknown Source) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAcces sorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:618) at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.ReflectionMethodInvoker.invoke(Refl ectionMethodInvoker.java:34) at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanOperation.invoke(GBeanOperatio n.java:130) at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.invoke(GBeanInstance. java:816) at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.RawInvoker.invoke(RawInvoker.java:5 7) at org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.RawOperationInvoker.invoke(RawOperat ionInvoker.java:35) at org.apache.geronimo.kernel.basic.ProxyMethodInterceptor.intercept(Pro xyMethodInterceptor.java:96) at org.apache.geronimo.kernel.config.EditableConfigurationManager$$Enhan cerByCGLIB$$f3c83224.startConfiguration() at org.apache.geronimo.system.main.EmbeddedDaemon.doStartup(EmbeddedDaem on.java:161) at org.apache.geronimo.system.main.EmbeddedDaemon.execute(EmbeddedDaemon .java:78) at org.apache.geronimo.kernel.util.MainConfigurationBootstrapper.main(Ma inConfigurationBootstrapper.java:45) at org.apache.geronimo.cli.AbstractCLI.executeMain(AbstractCLI.java:65) at org.apache.geronimo.cli.daemon.DaemonCLI.main(DaemonCLI.java:30) started in .468s Module 60/75 org.apache.geronimo.configs/myfaces/2.2/car started in .015s -Jack On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:27 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:37 PM, David Jencks wrote: >> >> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:00 PM, David Jencks
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
On Nov 30, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:37 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Nov 30, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:00 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Nov 30, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: There were several files missing source license headers. I've fixed in branches/2.1 2.1?? Heh. branches/2.2 is what I meant to type. . They would both merit a -1 from me. Where is the code in svn? https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/tags/geronimo-2.2 Oh. I didn't notice it. I was looking for tags/2.2. Which would follow our previous convention for naming tags. Is there a reason for using a different format? release plugin defaults OK. Then in absence of any other reasons, I think we should be consistent with the naming of our previous releases. If you mean the previous main geronimo releases, I strongly disagree. We have no reason I can see to avoid following maven defaults here. With the exception of the main geronimo release, previously done through an arcane and IMO incomprehensible process, everything we've released in the last year or so has used the release plugin default tag locations of -. thanks david jencks --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:37 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: > >> >> On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:00 PM, David Jencks wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: >>> There were several files missing source license headers. I've fixed in branches/2.1 >>> >>> 2.1?? >> >> Heh. branches/2.2 is what I meant to type. >> >>> . They would both merit a -1 from me. Where is the code in svn? >>> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/tags/geronimo-2.2 >> >> Oh. I didn't notice it. I was looking for tags/2.2. Which would follow our >> previous convention for naming tags. Is there a reason for using a different >> format? > > release plugin defaults OK. Then in absence of any other reasons, I think we should be consistent with the naming of our previous releases. --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
On Nov 30, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:00 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Nov 30, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: There were several files missing source license headers. I've fixed in branches/2.1 2.1?? Heh. branches/2.2 is what I meant to type. . They would both merit a -1 from me. Where is the code in svn? https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/tags/geronimo-2.2 Oh. I didn't notice it. I was looking for tags/2.2. Which would follow our previous convention for naming tags. Is there a reason for using a different format? release plugin defaults david jencks --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
On Nov 30, 2009, at 10:00 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: > >> There were several files missing source license headers. I've fixed in >> branches/2.1 > > 2.1?? Heh. branches/2.2 is what I meant to type. > >> . They would both merit a -1 from me. >> >> Where is the code in svn? > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/tags/geronimo-2.2 Oh. I didn't notice it. I was looking for tags/2.2. Which would follow our previous convention for naming tags. Is there a reason for using a different format? --kevan
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
On Nov 30, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: There were several files missing source license headers. I've fixed in branches/2.1 2.1?? . They would both merit a -1 from me. Where is the code in svn? https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/tags/geronimo-2.2 Although I use the source archives to verify the release, I also usually diff against the code in svn. Couldn't figure out how to do that, here... I haven't run a build, yet. But took a look through my typical checks and didn't see any other problems... thanks david jencks --kevan On Nov 28, 2009, at 9:06 PM, David Jencks wrote: I've managed to come up with a 2.2 release candidate built using the maven-release-plugin. See the jira issues here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10220&styleName=Html&version=12312965 Staged to 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-024/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.zip If you vote you should at least examine these and make sure something plausible builds from them. Since we're on a holiday weekend and we have to verify that the binaries pass the tck the voting is likely to remain open for more than the minimum 72 hours. [ ] +1 about time to push this out the door [ ] 0 no opinion [ ] -1 not this one (please explain why) Many thanks david jencks
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
On Nov 30, 2009, at 6:55 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Did a grep on a clean checkout and noticed tons of 2.2-SNAPSHOT
references still in the source.
1) Do all the dependencies.xml files need to be updated?
http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/attributes-1.2
" xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/plugins-1.3";>
org.apache.geronimo.configs
welcome-jetty
2.2-SNAPSHOT
car
This might be confusing but doesn't cause build problems. The module-
id is actually there only to help humans identify which file we're
looking at.
2) Found several geronimo-web.xml files that were not updated, like -
plugins/welcome/geronimo-welcome/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/geronimo-
web.xml
These aren't used in the build. I guess we should delete them
eventually.
3) Some junit test files were not updated -
framework/modules/geronimo-upgrade/src/test/resources/
gbean_1_result.xml
framework/modules/geronimo-plugin/src/test/resources/geronimo-
plugins.xml
framework/configs/geronimo-gbean-deployer/src/it/j2ee-system-it1/src/
test/resources/META-INF/geronimo-plugin.xml
4) Some hits in the Java code -
plugins/clustering/clustering-it/clustering-test/src/main/java/org/
apache/geronimo/farm/plugin/test/TestGBean.java:69:
JpaPluginInstance pluginInstance = new
JpaPluginInstance("org.apache.geronimo.plugins.it/customer-jetty/2.2-
SNAPSHOT/car");
framework/modules/geronimo-system/src/test/java/org/apache/geronimo/
system/configuration/LocalAttributeManagerReadWriteTest.java:
257:"\"org.apache.geronimo.configs/cxf-ejb-deployer/2.1-SNAPSHOT/car\"
condition=\"props.getProperty('org.apache.geronimo.jaxws.provider',
'cxf') == 'cxf'\">\n"
These seem to all be in tests and the tests pass.
I don't see any reason to try again with the release based on these
findings. I don't see any way to update these automatically as an
action of the release plugin. Maybe we could install them with
filters, or just not worry about them.
thanks
david jencks
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
I've managed to come up with a 2.2 release candidate built using
the maven-release-plugin.
See the jira issues here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10220&styleName=Html&version=12312965
Staged to
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-024/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.zip
If you vote you should at least examine these and make sure
something plausible builds from them.
Since we're on a holiday weekend and we have to verify that the
binaries pass the tck the voting is likely to remain open for more
than the minimum 72 hours.
[ ] +1 about time to push this out the door
[ ] 0 no opinion
[ ] -1 not this one (please explain why)
Many thanks
david jencks
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
There were several files missing source license headers. I've fixed in branches/2.1. They would both merit a -1 from me. Where is the code in svn? Although I use the source archives to verify the release, I also usually diff against the code in svn. Couldn't figure out how to do that, here... I haven't run a build, yet. But took a look through my typical checks and didn't see any other problems... --kevan On Nov 28, 2009, at 9:06 PM, David Jencks wrote: > I've managed to come up with a 2.2 release candidate built using the > maven-release-plugin. > > See the jira issues here: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10220&styleName=Html&version=12312965 > > Staged to > > 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-024/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.zip > > If you vote you should at least examine these and make sure something > plausible builds from them. > > Since we're on a holiday weekend and we have to verify that the binaries pass > the tck the voting is likely to remain open for more than the minimum 72 > hours. > > [ ] +1 about time to push this out the door > [ ] 0 no opinion > [ ] -1 not this one (please explain why) > > Many thanks > david jencks >
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
Did a grep on a clean checkout and noticed tons of 2.2-SNAPSHOT
references still in the source.
1) Do all the dependencies.xml files need to be updated?
xmlns:ns2="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/attributes-1.2";
xmlns="http://geronimo.apache.org/xml/ns/plugins-1.3";>
org.apache.geronimo.configs
welcome-jetty
2.2-SNAPSHOT
car
2) Found several geronimo-web.xml files that were not updated, like -
plugins/welcome/geronimo-welcome/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/geronimo-web.xml
3) Some junit test files were not updated -
framework/modules/geronimo-upgrade/src/test/resources/gbean_1_result.xml
framework/modules/geronimo-plugin/src/test/resources/geronimo-plugins.xml
framework/configs/geronimo-gbean-deployer/src/it/j2ee-system-it1/src/test/resources/META-INF/geronimo-plugin.xml
4) Some hits in the Java code -
plugins/clustering/clustering-it/clustering-test/src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/farm/plugin/test/TestGBean.java:69:
JpaPluginInstance pluginInstance = new
JpaPluginInstance("org.apache.geronimo.plugins.it/customer-jetty/2.2-SNAPSHOT/car");
framework/modules/geronimo-system/src/test/java/org/apache/geronimo/system/configuration/LocalAttributeManagerReadWriteTest.java:257:
"name=\"org.apache.geronimo.configs/cxf-ejb-deployer/2.1-SNAPSHOT/car\"
condition=\"props.getProperty('org.apache.geronimo.jaxws.provider',
'cxf') == 'cxf'\">\n"
-Donald
David Jencks wrote:
I've managed to come up with a 2.2 release candidate built using the
maven-release-plugin.
See the jira issues here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10220&styleName=Html&version=12312965
Staged to
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-024/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.zip
If you vote you should at least examine these and make sure something
plausible builds from them.
Since we're on a holiday weekend and we have to verify that the binaries
pass the tck the voting is likely to remain open for more than the
minimum 72 hours.
[ ] +1 about time to push this out the door
[ ] 0 no opinion
[ ] -1 not this one (please explain why)
Many thanks
david jencks
Re: [VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
I forgot to mention that I was unable to run mvn site:jar -- I got a variety of failures (class cast exceptions from javadoc, sql problem in uddi-db) so I don't see how we'll come up with a maven site for this release. thanks david jencks On Nov 28, 2009, at 6:06 PM, David Jencks wrote: I've managed to come up with a 2.2 release candidate built using the maven-release-plugin. See the jira issues here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10220&styleName=Html&version=12312965 Staged to 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-024/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.zip If you vote you should at least examine these and make sure something plausible builds from them. Since we're on a holiday weekend and we have to verify that the binaries pass the tck the voting is likely to remain open for more than the minimum 72 hours. [ ] +1 about time to push this out the door [ ] 0 no opinion [ ] -1 not this one (please explain why) Many thanks david jencks
[VOTE] Geronimo 2.2 release (first try)
I've managed to come up with a 2.2 release candidate built using the maven-release-plugin. See the jira issues here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10220&styleName=Html&version=12312965 Staged to 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-024/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.zip If you vote you should at least examine these and make sure something plausible builds from them. Since we're on a holiday weekend and we have to verify that the binaries pass the tck the voting is likely to remain open for more than the minimum 72 hours. [ ] +1 about time to push this out the door [ ] 0 no opinion [ ] -1 not this one (please explain why) Many thanks david jencks
