I moved the plugin discussion to a separate thread so w can close on this issue.
I think there are two issues regarding the plugins that have stirred the pot. The first was concern
over lack of communication about the plugins and I think that issue has been adequately covered and
there is no n
Here is what I got from the thread and think makes a lot of sense.
Working copies of versions in branches would be branches/n.n. This would be the effective trunk for
any version work.
When the team has decided that work is done and the release process begins the branches/n.n would be
*copie
I like David's suggestion. Having done this twice that would work really well. I do think a move
is appropriate if only for the following reason. If there is no branch then there is no work in
there. If it is needed a simple copy command creates it. I would prefer to not create things in
ca
Aaron,
I had sent out another note about what I was planning on doing; perhaps you didn't have a chance to
see it. My thinking was that I didn't want 1.1-SNAPSHOT to continue to be available. I'll catch up
on this thread but we do need to get going with a 1.1.1 branch.
Matt
Aaron Mulder wr
On 6/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
>
> Then you both missed the beginning of this thread where Aaron was
> saying "i want to update branches/1.1 with a fix for 1.1.1, where did
> it go?" The issue is, we haven't released 1.1 yet and no one should
> be upd
On 6/15/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
svn mv branches/1.1.0 tags/1.1.0
svn mv tags/1.1.0 branches/1.1.0 ## oops, found a bug
svn ci branches/1.1.0 ## fix something
svn mv branches/1.1.0 tags/1.1.0 ## retag
I prefer the above since the 1.1.0 branch is intended to be a dead
On 6/15/06, Paul McMahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* creating a new activeio listener from the JMS server portlet fails
with NoSuchMethodError because (I think) the version of activeio that
ActiveMQ was compiled against (2.2-SNAPSHOT) differs from the version
in Geronimo (2.0-r118). There's s
+1
On 6/15/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
-dain
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> +1
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> John Sisson wrote:
>>> A request was sent to the PMC to add a book to the website. I have
>>> created a patch for this and tested the changes
On 6/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then you both missed the beginning of this thread where Aaron was
> saying "i want to update branches/1.1 with a fix for 1.1.1, where did
> it go?" The issue is, we haven't released 1.1 yet and no one should
> be updating that source till
Will you start another vote?
Regards,
Alan
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I will change my +1 to a -1.
It seems I have introduced some incompatibilities with jdk 1.4, so that
xbean can only run on jdk 5.
These are easy to fix, to i will recut a release asap.
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On 6/1
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1906?page=comments#action_12416391
]
Paul McMahan commented on GERONIMO-1906:
Looks like the patch has been applied but in the Geronimo 1.1 release candidate
there's still a NoSuchMethodError as menti
I looked at the console using the jetty assembly on linux and the
tomcat assembly on windows. For the most part everything looks great
but I wanted to bring a couple of items to your attention:
* web access logs are enabled in the jetty distribution but not
enabled in the tomcat distribution.
+1 with emphasis. :)
David Blevins wrote:
> +1 from me!
>
>
> -David
>
> On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I have created what I hope is the final release of Geronimo 1.1.
>> There has been a lot of work that has gone into this release (please
>> review the REL
+1 from me!
-David
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
All,
I have created what I hope is the final release of Geronimo 1.1.
There has been a lot of work that has gone into this release
(please review the RELEASE-NOTES). Here are the final release
candidates for your re
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
the default option.
I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too
Hi All,
cwiki.apache.org/geronimo is fully operational !!! I updated the web site and placed it for review
at http://people.apache.org/~hcunico/branches_may2006/ see my last post [ Re: svn commit: r411192
[1/3] - in /geronimo/site: ./ docs/ docs/gbuild/ docs/xbean/ xdocs/ xdocs/gbuild/ xdocs/st
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I wonder if we're big enough to be a TLP. Thoughts?
(very big) +1 to TLP. We have plenty of folks to provide oversight,
and the scope is too big to fit well in any umbrella.
-Brian
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:48 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copyi
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-657?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino resolved AMQ-657:
---
Fix Version: 4.0
Resolution: Fixed
fix confirmed in 4.0
> FailoverTransport inhibits exception-listener and transport-listener
>
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I would still make the last step *copy* branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
when release is "final". We can then either leave the 1.1.0 branch
there in case of emergency fixes that preempt 1.1.1 or we can delete
it once the release has hit the mirrors (
So we keep the patches branch around in case we need to patch the
patches? This sounds really awkward.
Regards,
Alan
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I would still make the last step *copy* branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
when release is "final". We can then either leave the 1.1.0 branch
there in case of e
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:48 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying
or
David Blevins wrote:
Everyone, please read and ACK.
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
default option.
I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His
thoughts are clear though.
On Jun 14, 200
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying or
moving to tags/1.1.x Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibl
+1
On 6/15/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think so.
There are lots of TLPs that do not have multiple subprojects like
geronimo or ws have (log4j, xmlbeans, ant ..).
So, i' m +1 for ActiveMQ to graduate as a TLP.
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Hiram Chirino
+1
-dain
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:33 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
+1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
A request was sent to the PMC to add a book to the website. I have
created a patch for this and tested the changes.
See http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2122 for
details
Create a shared library for servicemix common and its dependencies that all
components would reference
--
Key: SM-455
URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/SM-455
Pr
+1
-David
On Jun 14, 2006, at 1:16 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I have pushed new XBean 2.4 binaries in a private repo for review.
They are available at
http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/xbean-2.4/m1/org.apache.xbean
http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/xbean-2.4/m2/org/apache/xbean
http://
I would still make the last step *copy* branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
when release is "final". We can then either leave the 1.1.0 branch
there in case of emergency fixes that preempt 1.1.1 or we can delete
it once the release has hit the mirrors (at which time there's
presumably no chance of wanti
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying
or moving to tags/1.1.x Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibly be
added to branc
+1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> John Sisson wrote:
>> A request was sent to the PMC to add a book to the website. I have
>> created a patch for this and tested the changes.
>>
>> See http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2122 for details and
>> patch for for site\trunk and site\branches\may20
On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:48 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying
or moving to tags/1.1.x
John Sisson wrote:
A request was sent to the PMC to add a book to the website. I have
created a patch for this and tested the changes.
See http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2122 for details and
patch for for site\trunk and site\branches\may2006.
Here's my +1, can I get 3 more?
+1
Regards,
Alan
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I have pushed new XBean 2.4 binaries in a private repo for
review.
They are available at
http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/xbean-2.4/m1/org.apache.xbean
http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/xbean-2.4/m2/org/apache/xbean
http://people.apa
Hernan,
It seems the 1.1 tomcat clustering example had recently ceased to work.
I've made the appropriate minor changes to the 1.1 deployment plan
(servlets-examples-tomcat-cluster-plan-5.5.15.xml) on the old confluence
wiki:
http://opensource.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/pages/viewpageattac
David Jencks wrote:
I've attached some patches for an incremental step towards pluggable
JACC to http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1563
Pre RTC I would check these in and pray that someone would notice and
if I was really lucky comment, and then continue with the next steps.
We'l
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-696?page=comments#action_36411 ]
Sanjiv Jivan commented on AMQ-696:
--
fyi I ran into the very same issue with 4.0 RC3. After upgrading to the 4.0
release jar (dated jun 13, 2006), I no longer see this error.
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1906?page=all ]
Aaron Mulder reopened GERONIMO-1906:
Assign To: (was: Aaron Mulder)
> Cannot add a new connector using ActiveMQManagerGBean
> --
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1906?page=comments#action_12416395
]
Aaron Mulder commented on GERONIMO-1906:
Perhaps the version of ActiveIO that ActiveMQ 3.2.4 is building against is
different than the version of ActiveIO that Ger
Hi,
I have been following the development of Drools, though not entirely
sure, but Drools 3.0 seems to be quite different from 2.x so I
suggest to give it a closer look to see if it really works.
/Tomas
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
The drools component has been tested with drools 2.1, but
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2083?page=comments#action_12416388
]
David Jencks commented on GERONIMO-2083:
I've succeeded in uploading howl-1.0.1-1 to the objectweb m2 repo. It should
get synched to ibiblio soon
> Use howl-log
I've attached some patches for an incremental step towards pluggable
JACC to http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1563
Pre RTC I would check these in and pray that someone would notice and
if I was really lucky comment, and then continue with the next
steps. We'll see how RTC work
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1563?page=all ]
David Jencks updated GERONIMO-1563:
---
Attachment: GERONIMO-1563-step2.1-v1.diff
GERONIMO-1563-step2.1-v1-openejb.diff
The attached patches start the process of making the se
Donald Woods wrote:
I have to agree with Matt - wrapping the container as a GBean and then
letting the container do its job is the least obtrusive for existing
users.
I'm not sure where Matt's message implies this.
Why must we turn everything into a GBean? We already make things
difficult f
Sorry, Hiram. I'm not following. Can you explain in greater detail?
Regards,
Alan
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Well, for one, you could do a release of geronimo at any time since
should stay stable as long as it does not move to SNAPSHOT
dependencies.
Regards,
Hiram
On 6/15/06, Donald Woods <[EMAI
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Not sure if this is already captured.
What do folks think about leaving the modules as independent pieces
with their own version numbers and the geronimo_version is just the
aggregate release to users? I expect this would make out life more
difficult but I haven't found
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:48 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying or
moving to tags/1.1.x Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibly be added to
branches/
The drools component has been tested with drools 2.1, but unless there is
incompatible changes,
there is no reason why it would not work.
Give it a try and tell us ...
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
On 6/15/06, hrvoje <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is it possible to use JBoss Rules (Drools 3) with the c
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:48 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying
or moving to tags/1.1.x Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibly be
added to branches/1.1, this should not
David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Comment from the peanut gallery...
It is extremely poor form to modify 'tagged' releases. Once a
release is tagged in SVN, it should not be changed, ever.
We don't update tags.
That's good.
1.1 sh
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying or
moving to tags/1.1.x Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibly be added to
branches/1.1, this should not cause problems. The release mana
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Does anyone mind if I move branches/1.1.1 back to branches/1.1?
The trick is we aren't done with 1.1.
Not sure why you make this statement. Do you mean that we cannot
move it back since people are actively working
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying or
moving to tags/1.1.x Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibly be added
to branches/1.1, this should not cause problems. The release
manager gets say over
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-512?page=comments#action_36410 ]
Hiram Chirino commented on AMQ-512:
---
Adrian.. a browse method now exists that you can pass in a selector.
> enhance the command line tools to allow messages on queues to be b
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-754?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino resolved AMQ-754:
---
Resolution: Fixed
Browse method with selector is now supported.
> Be nice to have a DestinationView.browse that could accept a message selector
> string
Is it possible to use JBoss Rules (Drools 3) with the current version of
ServiceMix? Does ServiceMix 3.0. incorporates Drools 3.0.?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/ServiceMix-and-JBoss-rules-t1793823.html#a4888089
Sent from the ServiceMix - Dev forum at Nabble.com.
It will be too much of a pain move the project when the GShell rulz the
planet. I suggest that the code be GSHELL and that the Descriptive name
be GShell - Sandbox.
Regards,
Alan
John Sisson wrote:
+1 . How about having "sandbox" as part of the name of the Project or
Component so it is clear
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
OK, so I see David Blevins has now created branches/1.1.1. That still
wasn't what I expected. I expect branches/1.1 to be the 1.1.x HEAD at
all times. I don't expect us to continue to change it to
branches/1.1.1 branches/1
Aaron Mulder wrote:
OK, so I see David Blevins has now created branches/1.1.1. That still
wasn't what I expected. I expect branches/1.1 to be the 1.1.x HEAD at
all times. I don't expect us to continue to change it to
branches/1.1.1 branches/1.1.2 branches/1.1.3 etc. That has the same
disadvan
David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:26 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
I have to say, that Aaron's view of SVN usage (keeping branches/1.1
around for all 1.1.x releases) makes a lot more sense to me than
forcing people to switch to new branch
David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
I have to say, that Aaron's view of SVN usage (keeping branches/1.1
around for all 1.1.x releases) makes a lot more sense to me than
forcing people to switch to new branch names...
We should have made a branches/1.1.0 copy
David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/15/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> * "java.lang.IllegalStateException: Timer already cancelled"
> exception happens when acquiring a connection from a database pool
All but this last one seem docume
Donald Woods wrote:
I have to say, that Aaron's view of SVN usage (keeping branches/1.1
around for all 1.1.x releases) makes a lot more sense to me than
forcing people to switch to new branch names...
We should have made a branches/1.1.0 copy from 1.1 , which could then
be moved to Tags once
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/15/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Exactly that, to make sure people don't "move on" and checkin work on
branches/1.1 for 1.1.1 where there is a freeze on branches/1.1 for
preparing v1.1 (which may not pass it's vote and have to be redone).
OK, so let's sa
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-512?page=comments#action_36408 ]
Hiram Chirino commented on AMQ-512:
---
I'll add in the selector support the the JMX method since I think that is
simpler solution.
> enhance the command line tools to allow me
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:27 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/15/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> * "java.lang.IllegalStateException: Timer already cancelled"
> exception happens when acquiring a connection from a database pool
Al
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-713?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino resolved AMQ-713:
---
Fix Version: (was: 4.1)
Resolution: Duplicate
> possible bug with LastImageRecoveryPolicy
> -
>
>
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-477?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino updated AMQ-477:
--
type: Test (was: Bug)
Fix Version: (was: 4.1)
> TEST org.apache.activemq.usecases.ThreeBrokerTopicNetworkUsingTcpTest FAILED
> ---
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-475?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino updated AMQ-475:
--
type: Test (was: Bug)
Fix Version: (was: 4.1)
> TEST org.apache.activemq.usecases.ThreeBrokerQueueNetworkTest FAILED
> ---
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-583?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino updated AMQ-583:
--
type: Test (was: Bug)
Fix Version: (was: 4.1)
> DiscoveryTransportBrokerTest can fail on some platforms
>
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-629?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino updated AMQ-629:
--
type: Test (was: Bug)
Fix Version: (was: 4.1)
> test case SslTransportBrokerTest not working
>
>
>
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-610?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino updated AMQ-610:
--
type: Test (was: Bug)
Fix Version: (was: 4.1)
> fix the test case FanoutTransportBrokerTest which is failing now due to the
> fix for AMQ-607 by
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-479?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino updated AMQ-479:
--
type: Test (was: Bug)
Fix Version: (was: 4.1)
> TEST org.apache.activemq.usecases.TwoBrokerQueueClientsReconnectTest FAILED
>
[ https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-626?page=all ]
Hiram Chirino updated AMQ-626:
--
type: Test (was: Bug)
Fix Version: (was: 4.1)
> fix test cases MultipleTestsWithSpring*Test which seem to fail due to another
> test keeping a br
On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:26 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
I have to say, that Aaron's view of SVN usage (keeping branches/
1.1 around for all 1.1.x releases) makes a lot more sense to me
than forcing people to switch to new branch names...
We shou
On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Comment from the peanut gallery...
It is extremely poor form to modify 'tagged' releases. Once a
release is tagged in SVN, it should not be changed, ever.
We don't update tags.
That's good.
1.1 should not have been t
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2120?page=all ]
David Jencks updated GERONIMO-2120:
---
Attachment: GERONIMO-2120-djencks.patch
Here's a patch that also uses reflection to solve the 2-classloaders problem
but also deals with the other (Pr
David Blevins wrote:
Comment from the peanut gallery...
It is extremely poor form to modify 'tagged' releases. Once a release
is tagged in SVN, it should not be changed, ever.
We don't update tags.
That's good.
1.1 should not have been tagged until after the vote to release 1.1
passed. F
On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:43 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Also, if we get the ServiceMix integration working, we may be able to
leverage the ServiceMix file poller instead of implementing a separate
one for Geronimo.
On Jun 15, 2006, at 7:50 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
+1, that was exactly what i was a
On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/15/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> * "java.lang.IllegalStateException: Timer already cancelled"
> exception happens when acquiring a connection from a database pool
All but this last one seem documentable and livable ti
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
I have to say, that Aaron's view of SVN usage (keeping branches/1.1
around for all 1.1.x releases) makes a lot more sense to me than
forcing people to switch to new branch names...
We should have made a branches/1.1.0 copy from 1.1 , which c
On 6/15/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> * "java.lang.IllegalStateException: Timer already cancelled"
> exception happens when acquiring a connection from a database pool
All but this last one seem documentable and livable till 1.1.1 comes
out. Does this last one mean that you
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
OK, so I just want to recap some of the "known issues" that have come
up in the last few days, some of which have been diagnosed and some of
which have not yet:
* WAR in an EAR cannot use a database pool by including a dependency
on it (the EAR
[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-665?page=comments#action_36406 ]
Hiram Chirino commented on AMQ-665:
---
A test case for this would be great!
> Error while using management interface on messages with binary data.
> ---
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/15/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Exactly that, to make sure people don't "move on" and checkin work on
branches/1.1 for 1.1.1 where there is a freeze on branches/1.1 for
preparing v1.1 (which may not pass it's vote and have t
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
I have to say, that Aaron's view of SVN usage (keeping branches/1.1
around for all 1.1.x releases) makes a lot more sense to me than
forcing people to switch to new branch names...
We should have made a branches/1.1.0 copy from 1.1 , which c
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
OK, so I see David Blevins has now created branches/1.1.1. That still
wasn't what I expected. I expect branches/1.1 to be the 1.1.x HEAD at
all times. I don't expect us to continue to change it to
branches/1.1.1 branches/1.1.2 branches/1.1.3 et
I have to say, that Aaron's view of SVN usage (keeping branches/1.1
around for all 1.1.x releases) makes a lot more sense to me than forcing
people to switch to new branch names...
We should have made a branches/1.1.0 copy from 1.1 , which could then be
moved to Tags once the voting is done.
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
H is there a way we could interrogate the server runtime to
determine its feature set and then block the deployment of non-
supported apps?
Currently the framework doesn't allow a way to do this, although
there are plans in WTP to be a
http://people.apache.org/dist/geronimo/eclipse/unstable/
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
Sachin Patel wrote:
I've just built against and posted a version of the eclipse plugin
that is compatible with castillo.
-sachin
Sachin,
Did you mean Callisto?
If so, where ca
On 6/15/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Exactly that, to make sure people don't "move on" and checkin work on
branches/1.1 for 1.1.1 where there is a freeze on branches/1.1 for
preparing v1.1 (which may not pass it's vote and have to be redone).
OK, so let's say our state today is
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Why not copied to tags/1.1.0 so that branches/1.1 would continue to be
available for 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT? That would have the advantage of not
disrupting anyone's work if there was code that wasn't checked in
pending 1.1.1,
[edit]
Are there any adv
OK, so I see David Blevins has now created branches/1.1.1. That still
wasn't what I expected. I expect branches/1.1 to be the 1.1.x HEAD at
all times. I don't expect us to continue to change it to
branches/1.1.1 branches/1.1.2 branches/1.1.3 etc. That has the same
disadvantages I originally no
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
Now we only have a 1.0 branch and a dead-1.2 branch? What's
going on?
Thanks,
Aaron
Aaron,
It was moved under tags/1.1.0.
Jay
Comment from the peanut gallery...
It is extremely poor form to
http://wiki.apache.org/geronimo/EclipseDeployment section Assembly Geronimo
have error or not clearance
Key: GERONIMO-2126
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO
-1
Its too much of a pain to move issues to a real project once the
project needs one. Also this will end up being a mess for people to
see what is actually going on for one of the projects in the
sandbox. And makes it practically impossible for those projects to
use the version/road ma
We could make a new category to indicate these are sandbox projects.
--jason
On Jun 15, 2006, at 6:27 AM, John Sisson wrote:
+1 . How about having "sandbox" as part of the name of the Project
or Component so it is clear to users what the status of the project
is.
John
Alan D. Cabrera wr
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
Now we only have a 1.0 branch and a dead-1.2 branch? What's going on?
Thanks,
Aaron
Aaron,
It was moved under tags/1.1.0.
Jay
Comment from the peanut gallery...
It is extremely poor form to modify 'tagged' releases. Once a release is tagged
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
Now we only have a 1.0 branch and a dead-1.2 branch? What's going on?
Matt did an svn mv instead of svn cp.
Matt, could you please copy the 1.1 tag back into branches/1.1?
Could you please change your incipient release manager guide to
r
Why not copied to tags/1.1.0 so that branches/1.1 would continue to be
available for 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT? That would have the advantage of not
disrupting anyone's work if there was code that wasn't checked in
pending 1.1.1, plus it wouldn't require everyone to do a full checkout
of the identical code
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
