2010/1/1 Mark Thomas :
>
> I saw that but wasn't too bothered about it. The issue was the corrupted
> binaries in both the src distros.
>
>>> A number of
>>> binary files of various types (.exe, gif, bmp) look to have been
>>> modified. Further investigation shows the fail-safe EOL patch wasn't
>>>
On 01/01/2010 11:05, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> On 12/31/2009 01:57 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Neither the src.zip nor the src.tar.gz matches the tag.
>
> +++
> Index: build.properties.default
> ===
> --- build.properties.default (r
On 12/31/2009 01:57 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 23/12/2009 17:56, jean-frederic clere wrote:
>> The candidates binaries are available here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~jfclere/tomcat-6/v6.0.22/
>>
>> According to the release process, the 6.0.22 tag is:
>> [X] Broken
>> [ ] Alpha
>> [ ] Beta
>> [ ]
On 23/12/2009 17:56, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> The candidates binaries are available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~jfclere/tomcat-6/v6.0.22/
>
> According to the release process, the 6.0.22 tag is:
> [X] Broken
> [ ] Alpha
> [ ] Beta
> [ ] Stable
>
> 6.0.21 was too broken to be used. Take
The candidates binaries are available here:
http://people.apache.org/~jfclere/tomcat-6/v6.0.22/
According to the release process, the 6.0.22 tag is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[ ] Stable
6.0.21 was too broken to be used. Take your time I won't release before
next week and before enough votes
