On 8/22/06, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well im not sure what maybe happen when some JVM_OPTS get passed twice..
Maybe JAMES not start ? Thats why i commited it in 2.3.. IF it will
start anyway every time i agree that this change is not neccassary in
2.3
it worked, like I know from
Am Dienstag, den 22.08.2006, 10:43 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann:
> On 8/22/06, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well its not a critical bug but i also see no "risk" in it. But if you
> > guys against it i have no problem to revert it.
>
> The risk is in changing per se, not in that p
On 8/22/06, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well its not a critical bug but i also see no "risk" in it. But if you
guys against it i have no problem to revert it.
The risk is in changing per se, not in that particular change.
Critical changes get reviewed and tested more intensively th
Well its not a critical bug but i also see no "risk" in it. But if you
guys against it i have no problem to revert it.
bye
Norman
Am Dienstag, den 22.08.2006, 10:27 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann:
> I request that we get even more defensive when pulling stuff over to
> the release-branch and do o
I request that we get even more defensive when pulling stuff over to
the release-branch and do only critical fixes.
This particular change is not a problem, but the abstract 'cumulative risk'.
Bernd
On 8/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Author: norman
Date: Mon Aug 21 23:15:
Author: norman
Date: Mon Aug 21 23:15:46 2006
New Revision: 433540
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=433540&view=rev
Log:
We only should pass JVM_OPTS only one time to java. See JAMES-594
Added:
james/server/branches/v2.3/phoenix-bin/bin/phoenix.sh
- copied unchanged from r433539,
