On 12/23/2009 01:38 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 23/12/2009 08:55, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 12/22/2009 09:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Servlet TCK passes
JSP TCK passes - 1 failure
This one, however, can't be ignored. Remy hinted at it early today. The
fix for bug 47453 created a regression in
On 23/12/2009 08:55, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> On 12/22/2009 09:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Servlet TCK passes
>> JSP TCK passes - 1 failure
>>
>> This one, however, can't be ignored. Remy hinted at it early today. The
>> fix for bug 47453 created a regression in that the constraint expressed
>
On 12/23/2009 11:59 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
So I suggest we try that for TC 7 and find out how to do that in a good
way (or not) before we try with 6.0. Let's stick to the existing process
for 6.0 and do the experiments with 7.
We can easily make a script similar to the one we have for mod_jk
On 23.12.2009 10:33, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
2009/12/23 Mladen Turk:
On 12/23/2009 02:12 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
release candidates (marking the files with rcX or dev or whatever) the
only safe thing would be to burn version number 6.0.21 and go for 6.0.22.
+1
Let's make a proper release.
2009/12/23 Mladen Turk :
> On 12/23/2009 02:12 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>
>> release candidates (marking the files with rcX or dev or whatever) the
>> only safe thing would be to burn version number 6.0.21 and go for 6.0.22.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Let's make a proper release.
+1
>
> I'd suggest to make a r
On 12/23/2009 02:12 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 23.12.2009 00:45, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
2009/12/22 Mark Thomas:
(...)
Since we are going to have to re-tag anyway, it would be good if the
patches required to fix the various niggles above were applied before
the tag.
Mark
+1 to re-tag.
And
On 12/22/2009 09:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Servlet TCK passes
JSP TCK passes - 1 failure
This one, however, can't be ignored. Remy hinted at it early today. The
fix for bug 47453 created a regression in that the constraint expressed
in JSP.2.3.4 namely thatA String literal can be provided, as
lo
On 12/23/2009 02:12 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
release candidates (marking the files with rcX or dev or whatever) the
only safe thing would be to burn version number 6.0.21 and go for 6.0.22.
+1
Let's make a proper release.
I'd suggest to make a release on a specific SVN revision instead tag.
Th
On 23.12.2009 00:45, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
2009/12/22 Mark Thomas:
(...)
Since we are going to have to re-tag anyway, it would be good if the
patches required to fix the various niggles above were applied before
the tag.
Mark
+1 to re-tag.
And I would like the fix to 47413 to be included
2009/12/22 Mark Thomas :
>(...)
> Since we are going to have to re-tag anyway, it would be good if the
> patches required to fix the various niggles above were applied before
> the tag.
>
> Mark
+1 to re-tag.
And I would like the fix to 47413 to be included in it. Patch already
proposed, though t
On 22/12/2009 20:38, A. Weinert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> full install of
> 22.12.2009 17:32 6.865.003 apache-tomcat-6.0.21.exe
> on actual XP home won't even start with:
>
> 22.12.2009 21:19:46 org.apache.tomcat.util.digester.Digester startElement
> SCHWERWIEGEND: Begin event threw exception
On 22/12/2009 20:27, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 22/12/2009 16:11, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>> The candidates binaries are available here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~jfclere/tomcat-6/v6.0.21-try2/
>>
>> According to the release process, the 6.0.21 tag is:
>> [X] Broken
>> [ ] Alpha
>> [ ] Beta
>> [
Hi all,
full install of
22.12.2009 17:32 6.865.003 apache-tomcat-6.0.21.exe
on actual XP home won't even start with:
22.12.2009 21:19:46 org.apache.tomcat.util.digester.Digester startElement
SCHWERWIEGEND: Begin event threw exception
java.lang.ClassNotFoundException:
org.apache.catalin
On 22/12/2009 16:11, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> The candidates binaries are available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~jfclere/tomcat-6/v6.0.21-try2/
>
> According to the release process, the 6.0.21 tag is:
> [X] Broken
> [ ] Alpha
> [ ] Beta
> [ ] Stable
>
> The differences are only the tcnativ
The candidates binaries are available here:
http://people.apache.org/~jfclere/tomcat-6/v6.0.21-try2/
According to the release process, the 6.0.21 tag is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[ ] Stable
The differences are only the tcnative windows binary files: tcnative was
broken in the previous try.
15 matches
Mail list logo