Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The source tarball and other packages are available here: > http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ > > According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is: > [X] Broken The sigs and hashes don't agree with their targets, except for the following two: apache-tomcat-4.1.39-src.tar.gz.asc apache-tomcat-4.1.39-src.tar.gz.md5 Could not find the signing key 33C60243 in any databases. > [ ] Alpha > [ ] Beta > [ ] Stable > > Cheers, > > Mark > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
On 19/11/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The source tarball and other packages are available here: > > http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ > > > > According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is: > > > [X] Broken > > The sigs and hashes don't agree with their targets, except for the > following two: > > apache-tomcat-4.1.39-src.tar.gz.asc > apache-tomcat-4.1.39-src.tar.gz.md5 The files supposedly all downloaded OK (no errors were reported by Firefox) - but it turned out that some were incomplete. A bit of research shows that this is a VERY long-standing bug in FireFox: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=237623 However, when I used wget and Opera to download apache-tomcat-4.1.39-LE-jdk14.exe the hash/sig still do not agree, so there appears to be a problem with those at least. > Could not find the signing key 33C60243 in any databases. > > > > [ ] Alpha > > [ ] Beta > > [ ] Stable > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mark > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
sebb wrote: > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The source tarball and other packages are available here: >> http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ >> >> According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is: >> [X] Broken > > The sigs and hashes don't agree with their targets, except for the > following two: > > apache-tomcat-4.1.39-src.tar.gz.asc > apache-tomcat-4.1.39-src.tar.gz.md5 I had network troubles during the upload and I had to retry several times. I thought it completed without error but it looks like apache-tomcat-4.1.39-LE-jdk14.exe got corrupted during the upload. The MD5 and sig is correct. I'll replace the file. It will take a couple of hours to replicate to the mirror but it isn't essential for the vote. The only files that matter are the source distros. I don't know why everything else failed for you. Maybe your downloads got corrupted? > Could not find the signing key 33C60243 in any databases. You didn't look very hard. Try: http://pgp.mit.edu/ or http://gpg-keyserver.de/ or http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/ Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sebb wrote: > > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The source tarball and other packages are available here: > >> http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ > >> > >> According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is: > >> [X] Broken > > > > The sigs and hashes don't agree with their targets, except for the > > following two: > > > > apache-tomcat-4.1.39-src.tar.gz.asc > > apache-tomcat-4.1.39-src.tar.gz.md5 > > > I had network troubles during the upload and I had to retry several times. > I thought it completed without error but it looks like > apache-tomcat-4.1.39-LE-jdk14.exe got corrupted during the upload. The MD5 > and sig is correct. I'll replace the file. It will take a couple of hours > to replicate to the mirror but it isn't essential for the vote. The only > files that matter are the source distros. > > I don't know why everything else failed for you. Maybe your downloads got > corrupted? > Yes, see other reply. > > > Could not find the signing key 33C60243 in any databases. > > > You didn't look very hard. Try: I was using subkeys.pgp.net. However: > http://pgp.mit.edu/ Just tried, not found. > or > http://gpg-keyserver.de/ Ditto > or > http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/ Ditto > > Mark > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
On 19/11/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > sebb wrote: > > > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> The source tarball and other packages are available here: > > >> http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ > > >> > > >> According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is: > > >> [X] Broken > > > > > > The sigs and hashes don't agree with their targets, except for the > > > following two: > > > > > > apache-tomcat-4.1.39-src.tar.gz.asc > > > apache-tomcat-4.1.39-src.tar.gz.md5 > > > > > > I had network troubles during the upload and I had to retry several times. > > I thought it completed without error but it looks like > > apache-tomcat-4.1.39-LE-jdk14.exe got corrupted during the upload. The MD5 > > and sig is correct. I'll replace the file. It will take a couple of hours > > to replicate to the mirror but it isn't essential for the vote. The only > > files that matter are the source distros. > > > > I don't know why everything else failed for you. Maybe your downloads got > > corrupted? > > > > > Yes, see other reply. > > > > > > > Could not find the signing key 33C60243 in any databases. > > > > > > You didn't look very hard. Try: > > > I was using subkeys.pgp.net. > > However: > > > http://pgp.mit.edu/ > > Just tried, not found. > > > > or > > http://gpg-keyserver.de/ > > > Ditto > > > > or > > http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/ > > > Ditto > Sorry, just discovered the problem. The key id is not 33C60243 (as reported by GPGV); it is 0x33C60243. I'll know next time... > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
sebb wrote: > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I had network troubles during the upload and I had to retry several times. >> I thought it completed without error but it looks like >> apache-tomcat-4.1.39-LE-jdk14.exe got corrupted during the upload. The MD5 >> and sig is correct. I'll replace the file. It will take a couple of hours >> to replicate to the mirror but it isn't essential for the vote. The only >> files that matter are the source distros. >> >> I don't know why everything else failed for you. Maybe your downloads got >> corrupted? > > Yes, see other reply. I have fixed the corrupted upload and it is now available for download. I have checked the MD5 and the sig - both are fine. >> > Could not find the signing key 33C60243 in any databases. >> >> >> You didn't look very hard. Try: > > I was using subkeys.pgp.net. It is there too. You need to search for 0x33C60243 (that is a leading zero) rather than Ox33C60243 or 33C60243? Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
sebb wrote: > Sorry, just discovered the problem. > > The key id is not 33C60243 (as reported by GPGV); it is 0x33C60243. > I'll know next time... Yep - that'll be the problem. When you search for key IDs you always have to use hexadecimal format and prefix the id with "0x" (note zero, not the letter O) Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sebb wrote: > > Sorry, just discovered the problem. > > > > The key id is not 33C60243 (as reported by GPGV); it is 0x33C60243. > > I'll know next time... > > > Yep - that'll be the problem. When you search for key IDs you always have > to use hexadecimal format and prefix the id with "0x" (note zero, not the > letter O) > Rather poor UI, given that they tend to be displayed without the 0x prefix... > Mark > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sebb wrote: > > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I had network troubles during the upload and I had to retry several times. > >> I thought it completed without error but it looks like > >> apache-tomcat-4.1.39-LE-jdk14.exe got corrupted during the upload. The > MD5 > >> and sig is correct. I'll replace the file. It will take a couple of hours > >> to replicate to the mirror but it isn't essential for the vote. The only > >> files that matter are the source distros. > >> > >> I don't know why everything else failed for you. Maybe your downloads got > >> corrupted? > > > > Yes, see other reply. > > > I have fixed the corrupted upload and it is now available for download. I > have checked the MD5 and the sig - both are fine. > Yes - downloaded via Opera and the hash/sig are OK. Opera complained about a download error, and the download had to be restarted. Maybe there is a problem with the server, given that you had upload issues too. I'll try reporting it. > >> > Could not find the signing key 33C60243 in any databases. > >> > >> > >> You didn't look very hard. Try: > > > > I was using subkeys.pgp.net. > > > It is there too. You need to search for 0x33C60243 (that is a leading zero) > rather than Ox33C60243 or 33C60243? > > > Mark > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The source tarball and other packages are available here: > http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ Hashes and sigs all work OK now. However there are some problems with the archives. == There are two copies of the source, in zip and tar.gz format. I would expect the contents to be the same, apart from line-endings in source files. However, there are several binary files that are different: connectors/jni/native/os/win32/logmessages.bin connectors/procrun/bin.../tomcat*.exe This suggests a packaging error - perhaps these bin files were incorrectly formatted to correct the line-endings? Also, the procrun/README.txt file refers to Tomcat 5 (trivial) There are no top-level LICENSE and NOTICE files in the archive; instead there are various different files at different levels of the directory tree. Not every LICENSE file has an accompanying NOTICE file. == The binary zip archive has several empty directories that are not in the tgz version: logs shared work common/classes common/classes Is this intentional? The binary archives have one copy each of tomcat4.exe and tomcat4w.exe; I presume this is the version for Intel 32 bit. Why not include the amd64 and ia64 versions as well? The NOTICE and LICENSE files in the binary archive refer to several products that don't seem to be included (at least not as separate jars) JSSE JUnit pureTLS Tyrex === Findbugs reports lots of bugs, but I don't know if they relate to code that is actually used or not. For example, the org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.Reaper class uses a boolean field "running" to communicate with a different thread, but fails to synchronize access and does not use volatile. > According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is: > [ ] Broken > [ ] Alpha > [ ] Beta > [ ] Stable > > Cheers, > > Mark > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
On 19/11/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The source tarball and other packages are available here: > > http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ > I just ran RAT on the source archive. There are a lot of source files that don't have the standard AL headers. Some of these are test files or 3rd party files, but there are still quite a few that should have the AL headers, for example various make files, build.xml files, example Java files. Some source files have existing ASF copyright headers such as: Copyright (c) 1999 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved. which ought to be replaced by the AL header. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
sebb wrote: > On 19/11/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> The source tarball and other packages are available here: >> > http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ >> > > I just ran RAT on the source archive. > > There are a lot of source files that don't have the standard AL headers. > Some of these are test files or 3rd party files, but there are still > quite a few that should have the AL headers, for example various make > files, build.xml files, example Java files. > Some source files have existing ASF copyright headers such as: > > Copyright (c) 1999 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights > reserved. > > which ought to be replaced by the AL header. Care to provide the results to save me having to repeat the exercise? Better yet, how about providing some patches to go along with some of these reports of yours? Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
sebb wrote: > However, there are several binary files that are different: > > connectors/jni/native/os/win32/logmessages.bin > connectors/procrun/bin.../tomcat*.exe > > This suggests a packaging error - perhaps these bin files were > incorrectly formatted to correct the line-endings? Looks like. I'll get it fixed in svn in case there is another release. > Also, the procrun/README.txt file refers to Tomcat 5 (trivial) A result of sharing connectors between 4 & 5. I'll get that fixed too. > There are no top-level LICENSE and NOTICE files in the archive; > instead there are various different files at different levels of the > directory tree. Not every LICENSE file has an accompanying NOTICE > file. A result of pulling together various source trees. > The binary zip archive has several empty directories that are not in > the tgz version: > logs > shared > work > common/classes > common/classes > > Is this intentional? No, but they will be created as required. > The binary archives have one copy each of tomcat4.exe and > tomcat4w.exe; I presume this is the version for Intel 32 bit. Why not > include the amd64 and ia64 versions as well? The packaging pre-dates those versions being available. > The NOTICE and LICENSE files in the binary archive refer to several > products that don't seem to be included (at least not as separate > jars) > JSSE > JUnit > pureTLS > Tyrex That is me being over cautious and including all the libs you need to do a full build on a pre 1.4 JDK. > === > > Findbugs reports lots of bugs, but I don't know if they relate to code > that is actually > used or not. > > For example, the org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.Reaper class uses a > boolean field "running" to communicate with a different thread, but > fails to synchronize access and does not use volatile. As far as I can tell, not used. There is a lot of code like that that I am trying to clean up in trunk. It isn't worth the effort to back port it. If we were seeing bug reports for TC4 then I'd be worried but we aren't. But those people that are using TC4 seem happy with it - they just need the security fixes. I'll fix the obvious errors in case there is another 4.1.x release but I don't see anything here to stop 4.1.39. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sebb wrote: > > On 19/11/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> The source tarball and other packages are available here: > >> > http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ > >> > > > > I just ran RAT on the source archive. > > > > There are a lot of source files that don't have the standard AL headers. > > Some of these are test files or 3rd party files, but there are still > > quite a few that should have the AL headers, for example various make > > files, build.xml files, example Java files. > > Some source files have existing ASF copyright headers such as: > > > > Copyright (c) 1999 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights > > reserved. > > > > which ought to be replaced by the AL header. > > > Care to provide the results to save me having to repeat the exercise? > Better yet, how about providing some patches to go along with some of these > reports of yours? > I ran the report on the source archive. I could not find the corresponding place(s) in SVN. This makes it very hard for me to provide patches, but if you can explain what SVN directories I need to checkout I can provide some patches. > Mark > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sebb wrote: > > However, there are several binary files that are different: > > > > connectors/jni/native/os/win32/logmessages.bin > > connectors/procrun/bin.../tomcat*.exe > > > > This suggests a packaging error - perhaps these bin files were > > incorrectly formatted to correct the line-endings? > > Looks like. I'll get it fixed in svn in case there is another release. > > > > Also, the procrun/README.txt file refers to Tomcat 5 (trivial) > > A result of sharing connectors between 4 & 5. I'll get that fixed too. > > > > There are no top-level LICENSE and NOTICE files in the archive; > > instead there are various different files at different levels of the > > directory tree. Not every LICENSE file has an accompanying NOTICE > > file. > > A result of pulling together various source trees. > > > > The binary zip archive has several empty directories that are not in > > the tgz version: > > logs > > shared > > work > > common/classes > > common/classes > > > > Is this intentional? > > No, but they will be created as required. > > > > The binary archives have one copy each of tomcat4.exe and > > tomcat4w.exe; I presume this is the version for Intel 32 bit. Why not > > include the amd64 and ia64 versions as well? > > The packaging pre-dates those versions being available. > > > > The NOTICE and LICENSE files in the binary archive refer to several > > products that don't seem to be included (at least not as separate > > jars) > > JSSE > > JUnit > > pureTLS > > Tyrex > > That is me being over cautious and including all the libs you need to do a > full build on a pre 1.4 JDK. > > > > === > > > > Findbugs reports lots of bugs, but I don't know if they relate to code > > that is actually > > used or not. > > > > For example, the org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.Reaper class uses a > > boolean field "running" to communicate with a different thread, but > > fails to synchronize access and does not use volatile. > > > As far as I can tell, not used. There is a lot of code like that that I am > trying to clean up in trunk. It isn't worth the effort to back port it. > > > If we were seeing bug reports for TC4 then I'd be worried but we aren't. Or maybe the problem only occurs occasionally, not enough to bother reporting... > But those people that are using TC4 seem happy with it - they just need the > security fixes. > > I'll fix the obvious errors in case there is another 4.1.x release but I > don't see anything here to stop 4.1.39. > > > Mark > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
sebb wrote: > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> sebb wrote: >> > On 19/11/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> The source tarball and other packages are available here: >> >> > http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ >> >> >> > >> > I just ran RAT on the source archive. >> > >> > There are a lot of source files that don't have the standard AL headers. >> > Some of these are test files or 3rd party files, but there are still >> > quite a few that should have the AL headers, for example various make >> > files, build.xml files, example Java files. >> > Some source files have existing ASF copyright headers such as: >> > >> > Copyright (c) 1999 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights >> > reserved. >> > >> > which ought to be replaced by the AL header. >> >> >> Care to provide the results to save me having to repeat the exercise? >> Better yet, how about providing some patches to go along with some of these >> reports of yours? >> > > I ran the report on the source archive. > > I could not find the corresponding place(s) in SVN. http://tomcat.apache.org You want the link on the left hand side called "SVN Repositories" Also, note the fix I just applied to the SVN URLs for current-svn15 if you use a 1.5+ client. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sebb wrote: > > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> sebb wrote: > >> > On 19/11/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> The source tarball and other packages are available here: > >> >> > http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ > >> >> > >> > > >> > I just ran RAT on the source archive. > >> > > >> > There are a lot of source files that don't have the standard AL > headers. > >> > Some of these are test files or 3rd party files, but there are still > >> > quite a few that should have the AL headers, for example various make > >> > files, build.xml files, example Java files. > >> > Some source files have existing ASF copyright headers such as: > >> > > >> > Copyright (c) 1999 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights > >> > reserved. > >> > > >> > which ought to be replaced by the AL header. > >> > >> > >> Care to provide the results to save me having to repeat the exercise? > >> Better yet, how about providing some patches to go along with some of > these > >> reports of yours? > >> > > > > I ran the report on the source archive. > > > > I could not find the corresponding place(s) in SVN. > > > http://tomcat.apache.org > > You want the link on the left hand side called "SVN Repositories" I meant where to find the tag directory for the release 4.1.39. > Also, note the fix I just applied to the SVN URLs for current-svn15 if you > use a 1.5+ client. > I do; that will be useful. > Mark > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
sebb wrote: > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> sebb wrote: >> > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> sebb wrote: >> >> > On 19/11/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> The source tarball and other packages are available here: >> >> >> > http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I just ran RAT on the source archive. >> >> > >> >> > There are a lot of source files that don't have the standard AL >> headers. >> >> > Some of these are test files or 3rd party files, but there are still >> >> > quite a few that should have the AL headers, for example various make >> >> > files, build.xml files, example Java files. >> >> > Some source files have existing ASF copyright headers such as: >> >> > >> >> > Copyright (c) 1999 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights >> >> > reserved. >> >> > >> >> > which ought to be replaced by the AL header. >> >> >> >> >> >> Care to provide the results to save me having to repeat the exercise? >> >> Better yet, how about providing some patches to go along with some of >> these >> >> reports of yours? >> >> >> > >> > I ran the report on the source archive. >> > >> > I could not find the corresponding place(s) in SVN. >> >> >> http://tomcat.apache.org >> >> You want the link on the left hand side called "SVN Repositories" > > I meant where to find the tag directory for the release 4.1.39. It is in your inbox. Look at the svn commit messages. Anyway, patches should be against the current 4.1.x trunk. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sebb wrote: > > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> sebb wrote: > >> > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> sebb wrote: > >> >> > On 19/11/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> The source tarball and other packages are available here: > >> >> >> > http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > I just ran RAT on the source archive. > >> >> > > >> >> > There are a lot of source files that don't have the standard AL > headers. > >> >> > Some of these are test files or 3rd party files, but there are > still > >> >> > quite a few that should have the AL headers, for example various > make > >> >> > files, build.xml files, example Java files. > >> >> > Some source files have existing ASF copyright headers such as: > >> >> > > >> >> > Copyright (c) 1999 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights > >> >> > reserved. > >> >> > > >> >> > which ought to be replaced by the AL header. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Care to provide the results to save me having to repeat the exercise? > >> >> Better yet, how about providing some patches to go along with some > of these > >> >> reports of yours? > >> >> > >> > > >> > I ran the report on the source archive. > >> > > >> > I could not find the corresponding place(s) in SVN. > >> > >> > >> http://tomcat.apache.org > >> > >> You want the link on the left hand side called "SVN Repositories" > > > > I meant where to find the tag directory for the release 4.1.39. > > > It is in your inbox. Look at the svn commit messages. Which all seem to be against trunk, i.e. not a tag. > Anyway, patches should be against the current 4.1.x trunk. Will patches against current-svn15/tc4.1.x be OK? > Mark > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
sebb wrote: > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> sebb wrote: >> > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> sebb wrote: >> >> > On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> sebb wrote: >> >> >> > On 19/11/2008, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> The source tarball and other packages are available here: >> >> >> >> > http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I just ran RAT on the source archive. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > There are a lot of source files that don't have the standard AL >> headers. >> >> >> > Some of these are test files or 3rd party files, but there are >> still >> >> >> > quite a few that should have the AL headers, for example various >> make >> >> >> > files, build.xml files, example Java files. >> >> >> > Some source files have existing ASF copyright headers such as: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Copyright (c) 1999 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights >> >> >> > reserved. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > which ought to be replaced by the AL header. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Care to provide the results to save me having to repeat the exercise? >> >> >> Better yet, how about providing some patches to go along with some >> of these >> >> >> reports of yours? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I ran the report on the source archive. >> >> > >> >> > I could not find the corresponding place(s) in SVN. >> >> >> >> >> >> http://tomcat.apache.org >> >> >> >> You want the link on the left hand side called "SVN Repositories" >> > >> > I meant where to find the tag directory for the release 4.1.39. >> >> >> It is in your inbox. Look at the svn commit messages. > > Which all seem to be against trunk, i.e. not a tag. I meant the commits to create the tags. >> Anyway, patches should be against the current 4.1.x trunk. > > Will patches against current-svn15/tc4.1.x be OK? Absolutely. That is always the way we work. We don't apply patches to tags. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
Mark Thomas schrieb: > sebb wrote: >> On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> sebb wrote: >>> > I meant where to find the tag directory for the release 4.1.39. >>> >>> >>> It is in your inbox. Look at the svn commit messages. >> Which all seem to be against trunk, i.e. not a tag. > > I meant the commits to create the tags. r718561 - r718564: tomcat/container/tags/tc4.1.x/TOMCAT_4_1_39/ copied from r718560, tomcat/container/branches/tc4.1.x/ tomcat/connectors/tags/tc4.1.x/TOMCAT_4_1_39/ copied from r718561, tomcat/connectors/trunk/ tomcat/jasper/tags/tc4.1.x/TOMCAT_4_1_39/ copied from r718562, tomcat/jasper/branches/tc4.1.x/ tomcat/servletapi/tags/servlet2.3-jsp1.2-tc4.x/TOMCAT_4_1_39/ copied from r718563, tomcat/servletapi/branches/servlet2.3-jsp1.2-tc4.x/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
Mark Thomas wrote: > The source tarball and other packages are available here: > http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.39/ > > According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is: > [ ] Broken > [ ] Alpha > [ ] Beta > [X] Stable Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
Mark Thomas schrieb: > According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is: > [ ] Broken > [ ] Alpha > [ ] Beta > [X] Stable Regards, Rainer - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
Rainer Jung wrote: > Mark Thomas schrieb: >> According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is: >> [ ] Broken >> [ ] Alpha >> [ ] Beta >> [X] Stable Any more votes for 4.1.39? We still need another +1 to do the release. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release build 4.1.39
According to the release process, the 4.1.39 tag is: [ ] Broken [ ] Alpha [ ] Beta [X] Stable - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]