With 4 +1's (3 from PMC members) for stable, the votes passes and 4.1.40
is approved for release as a STABLE release.
I'll get the files in place, get the site updated, give the mirrors a
chance to get updated and then make the announcement.
Mark
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
> [X] Stable
>
>
[X] Stable
Filip
Mark Thomas wrote:
The (updated) candidates source tarball and derived binaries are
available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.40/
According to the release process, the release based on the 4.0.40 tag is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
Mark
Mark Thomas wrote:
> The (updated) candidates source tarball and derived binaries are
> available here:
> http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.40/
>
> According to the release process, the release based on the 4.0.40 tag is:
> [ ] Broken
> [ ] Alpha
> [ ] Beta
> [ ] Stable
Folks,
2009/6/16 Mark Thomas :
> The (updated) candidates source tarball and derived binaries are
> available here:
> http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.40/
>
Minor issues:
a)
When installing apache-tomcat-4.1.40.exe,
the installer dialog page that allows to specify port number and
name/
Mark Thomas wrote:
The (updated) candidates source tarball and derived binaries are
available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.40/
According to the release process, the release based on the 4.0.40 tag is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[X] Stable
[x] Stable
Tested on
On 19/06/2009, Mark Thomas wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > The source archives mostly agree with the tags, however there are code
> > changes in the following files:
> >
> > connectors/http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11/Http11Processor.java
> > connectors/util/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/buf/C
sebb wrote:
> The source archives mostly agree with the tags, however there are code
> changes in the following files:
>
> connectors/http11/src/java/org/apache/coyote/http11/Http11Processor.java
> connectors/util/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/buf/CharChunk.java
> connectors/util/java/org/apache/tom
On 19/06/2009, Mark Thomas wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 16/06/2009, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >> The (updated) candidates source tarball and derived binaries are
> >> available here:
> >> http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.40/
> >>
> >> According to the release process, the re
sebb wrote:
> On 16/06/2009, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> The (updated) candidates source tarball and derived binaries are
>> available here:
>> http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.40/
>>
>> According to the release process, the release based on the 4.0.40 tag is:
>
> Did you mean 4.1
On 16/06/2009, Mark Thomas wrote:
> The (updated) candidates source tarball and derived binaries are
> available here:
> http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.40/
>
> According to the release process, the release based on the 4.0.40 tag is:
Did you mean 4.1.40?
Also, where can I
Mark Thomas wrote:
> The (updated) candidates source tarball and derived binaries are
> available here:
> http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.40/
>
> According to the release process, the release based on the 4.0.40 tag is:
> [ ] Broken
> [ ] Alpha
> [ ] Beta
> [X] Stable
Here is
The (updated) candidates source tarball and derived binaries are
available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.40/
According to the release process, the release based on the 4.0.40 tag is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[ ] Stable
Mark
--
Mladen Turk wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> IMO the release is broken.
>>
>> If the windows installer issue is an isolated one it, the release is no
>> worse than any that have gone out of the door previously. That said, the
>> issues are all fixed so I'll roll a 4.1.41 release.
>>
>
> Why not
Mark Thomas wrote:
IMO the release is broken.
If the windows installer issue is an isolated one it, the release is no
worse than any that have gone out of the door previously. That said, the
issues are all fixed so I'll roll a 4.1.41 release.
Why not just re-tagging?
It's no like it was re
sebb wrote:
> The copyright year in the NOTICE files in the binary archive is still
> 2008; surely it should be 2009?
Yep, it should be 2009. This has been fixed.
> The connectors/NOTICE file in the source archive is wrong.
>
> There are no NOTICE files for the jasper and servletapi directory su
The copyright year in the NOTICE files in the binary archive is still
2008; surely it should be 2009?
The connectors/NOTICE file in the source archive is wrong.
There are no NOTICE files for the jasper and servletapi directory sub-trees.
It would be better to have a single N&L file at the top of
The candidates source tarball and derived binaries are available here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.40/
According to the release process, the 4.0.40 tag is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[ ] Stable
Mark
-
17 matches
Mail list logo