Re: Review model take 2

So what about RTC for core and CTR for extensions in incubator land ? 2007/9/21, Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I have a strong feeling this is turning again into a debate over words, > arcane details > and abstract concepts ( 'what is a trunk' and how to increase innovation ) > > The rea

Re: Review model take 2

I have a strong feeling this is turning again into a debate over words, arcane details and abstract concepts ( 'what is a trunk' and how to increase innovation ) The real issue is quite simple, and not having a trunk or all the new process seems more like an attempt to solve it: We want tomcat ev

Re: Review model take 2

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: It also brings up a real question of why was it so important to 'kill trunk' if trunk, admittedly, is not relevant? Trunk was the sandbox of only one committer, so as far as I am concerned it was no longer appropriate (as a trunk branch, personally I have no proble

svn commit: r577909 - in /tomcat/connectors/trunk/jni/native: build/tcnative.m4 configure.in

Author: jfclere Date: Thu Sep 20 13:36:05 2007 New Revision: 577909 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=577909&view=rev Log: Add support of J9VM based JVM. Modified: tomcat/connectors/trunk/jni/native/build/tcnative.m4 tomcat/connectors/trunk/jni/native/configure.in Modified: tomcat/co

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43424] - MD5 files for 6.0.14 contain unexpanded "${md5sum.binary-prefix}"

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Review model take 2

Will f/w board since this follows from the 'no more trunk' comment which some officers questioned. Please don't cc per-say, but feel free to f/w a relevant response to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (it's bad form to crosspost a message with both public-and-private destinations). Bill Barker wrote: > "William

Re: Review model take 2

Remy Maucherat wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:28 PM, Bill Barker wrote: And, yet again, Filip chooses to question the validity of the vote, instead of discussing ideas :(. How can one vote when the details of what one is voting for are still being discussed? Or, on the o

Re: Review model take 2

It could be a simple as (as opposed to trying to reinvent the apache way) 1. Through out a vote for the 6.0.x/5.5.x/5.0.x/4.1.x branches RTC or CTR 2. We'll all pay more attention to discussing a change prior to SVN commit whether it is RTC or CTR But we don't need a "new process" for this 3.

Re: Review model take 2

Folks, I'm somewhat on the outside looking here, so I'm probably going to be a little naive: 1. It's really time to come to a conclusion on this, before people get too exhausted and give up. 2. Ideally everyone should compromise a little on a solution, but this doesn't always happen. 3. Peop

Re: Review model take 2

On Sep 20, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Costin Manolache wrote: On 9/20/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Bill Barker wrote: TC 4.1.x and TC 5.5.x represented major changes to the core API, and resulted in much more stable Tomcat code. There is no such issue

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 38797] - 5.5.12 and 5.5.15 emit different code on

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Review model take 2

Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:28 PM, Bill Barker wrote: And, yet again, Filip chooses to question the validity of the vote, instead of discussing ideas :(. How can one vote when the details of what one is voting for are still being discussed? Or, on the other hand, why call T

Re: Review model take 2

On 9/20/07, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > well, we have the annotation changes needed for geronimo, that were not > allowed in 6.0 > personally, I think that was enough to keep trunk alive. > Let's say that I did have a huge architecture change, lets say, I want > to swap ou

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12428] - request.getUserPrincipal(): Misinterpretation of specification?

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12428] - request.getUserPrincipal(): Misinterpretation of specification?

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: [Tomcat 5] Bug 38797

Thomas Colin de Verdière wrote: > Sorry to bother again i'd like to know if someone has been informed that > the bug 38797 has been REOPENED. Every bugzilla update gets e-mailed to this list, so yes we have all been informed. (And i did). I REOPENED the bug 38797 > because i think it is not corr

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12428] - request.getUserPrincipal(): Misinterpretation of specification?

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Review model take 2

Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: > Costin Manolache wrote: >> On 9/20/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Bill Barker wrote: >>> >>> TC 4.1.x and TC 5.5.x represented major changes to the core API, and resulted in much more stable Tomcat c

Re: Review model take 2

Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: > Bill Barker wrote: >> "Filip Hanik - Dev Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>> jean-frederic clere wrote: >>> Remy Maucherat wrote: > jean-frederic clere wrote: > > >> Filip Ha

Re: Review model take 2

Costin Manolache wrote: On 9/20/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Bill Barker wrote: TC 4.1.x and TC 5.5.x represented major changes to the core API, and resulted in much more stable Tomcat code. There is no such issue for TC 6.0.x (just a disa

Re: Review model take 2

Bill Barker wrote: "Filip Hanik - Dev Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] jean-frederic clere wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: jean-frederic clere wrote: Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote: Remy Maucherat wrote: Hi,

Re: Review model take 2

On 9/20/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Bill Barker wrote: > > > > > TC 4.1.x and TC 5.5.x represented major changes to the core API, and > > resulted in much more stable Tomcat code. There is no such issue > > for TC > > 6.0.x (just a disagreement

Re: Review model take 2

On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Bill Barker wrote: TC 4.1.x and TC 5.5.x represented major changes to the core API, and resulted in much more stable Tomcat code. There is no such issue for TC 6.0.x (just a disagreement on the comet API, which we have already dealt with, and decided to let

[Tomcat 5] Bug 38797

Hello, Sorry to bother again i'd like to know if someone has been informed that the bug 38797 has been REOPENED. (And i did). I REOPENED the bug 38797 because i think it is not corrected. But i don't know if someone has been notified because i didn't see any change. So i'm mailing to you. Co

Re: Review model take 2

On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:43 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: If Joe says "this feature isn't going to be acceptable because Y", well then there isn't much to discuss at that point, and it probably should be backed out right away while the basic idea is debated. Certainly it depends on wha

Re: Review model take 2

On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:28 PM, Bill Barker wrote: And, yet again, Filip chooses to question the validity of the vote, instead of discussing ideas :(. How can one vote when the details of what one is voting for are still being discussed? Or, on the other hand, why call for a (premature) vot

Connectors settings and JMX reports

Hi to all, A silly question, while using JConsole to check the min/max/spare threads of AJP threads, I see that I couldn't see min/max/spare when not set in server.xml. Normal ? Should I see the default values ? Regards - To u

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43435] New: - AbstractReplicatedMap.memberDisappeared is executed more than the necessity.

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 12428] - request.getUserPrincipal(): Misinterpretation of specification?

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Review model take 2

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > jean-frederic clere wrote: >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> >>> If you are talking about at least 3 +1's, more + than -, then that's being >>> realistic. JFC - did you really mean a margin? >> Yep that was what I meant at that time. > > I'm really sorry I misunderst

Re: Review model take 2

jean-frederic clere wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> If you are talking about at least 3 +1's, more + than -, then that's being >> realistic. JFC - did you really mean a margin? > > Yep that was what I meant at that time. I'm really sorry I misunderstood you Jean-Frederic, I came from

Re: Review model take 2

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Remy Maucherat wrote: >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >>> jean-frederic clere wrote: Now for me that just makes another chapter in the "STATUS" file: "PATCHES being discussed". After a week those patches should be accepted or reverted. Reverted patches an

Re: Review model take 2

Remy Maucherat wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> jean-frederic clere wrote: >>> Now for me that just makes another chapter in the "STATUS" file: >>> "PATCHES being discussed". After a week those patches should be accepted >>> or reverted. Reverted patches and corresponding discussions should

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 43423] - catalina.sh -force too fast

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Review model take 2

Costin Manolache wrote: Let's make it clear - adding new features or replacing/improving any component in tomcat should stay CTR and should be encouraged and supported. Anyone can create Valves, Connectors, Jndi implementations, class loaders or almost anything else that can be plugged into tomca