Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:40 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > http://people.apache.org/~markt/patches/2019-06-03-h2-v1.patch I'm testing extensively, and this patch http://people.apache.org/~markt/patches/2019-06-03-h2-v2.patch looks good to me. Rémy

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:40 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/06/2019 22:29, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > > How about this as an idea: > > > > --- a/java/org/apache/coyote/AbstractProtocol.java > > +++ b/java/org/apache/coyote/AbstractProtocol.java > > @@ -905,6 +905,10 @@ > >

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On 03/06/2019 22:29, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > How about this as an idea: > > --- a/java/org/apache/coyote/AbstractProtocol.java > +++ b/java/org/apache/coyote/AbstractProtocol.java > @@ -905,6 +905,10 @@ >                                  } >                              }

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:06 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/06/2019 21:45, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:05 PM Mark Thomas > > wrote: > > > > On 03/06/2019 19:54, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ok, that's completely different ;)

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On 03/06/2019 21:45, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:05 PM Mark Thomas > wrote: > > On 03/06/2019 19:54, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > > > > Ok, that's completely different ;) I tried to be careful with > that, but > > the algorithm ch

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:05 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/06/2019 19:54, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > > > > Ok, that's completely different ;) I tried to be careful with that, but > > the algorithm changes to non blocking, so obviously there were some > > risks involved. I'll have a quick look at

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On 03/06/2019 19:54, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > Ok, that's completely different ;) I tried to be careful with that, but > the algorithm changes to non blocking, so obviously there were some > risks involved. I'll have a quick look at it, but you can go ahead with > your window update fix and tag, t

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:36 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/06/2019 16:43, Mark Thomas wrote: > > On 03/06/2019 14:15, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > > > >> I think I have found at least one more edge case around the > >> Stream/Connection allocation handling. Fixing it is going to mean > going

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On 03/06/2019 16:43, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/06/2019 14:15, Rémy Maucherat wrote: >> I think I have found at least one more edge case around the >> Stream/Connection allocation handling. Fixing it is going to mean going >> back to a synchronizing on a single object (Stream) so the

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On 03/06/2019 14:15, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:21 PM Mark Thomas > wrote: > > Hi, > > It is the start of another month so I intend to tag 9.0.x and 8.5.x > shortly. Or at least I did until I found a handful of HTTP/2 related > failu

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:21 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi, > > It is the start of another month so I intend to tag 9.0.x and 8.5.x > shortly. Or at least I did until I found a handful of HTTP/2 related > failures when I ran the unit tests on Windows for 9.0.x. > Bad news :( I haven't run into it. +

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:23 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi, > > Just a heads up that I'm intended to tag these soon. Possibly tomorrow > but certainly by the end of the week. I just have a few things I want to > look at first. > Should I leave the async IO code enabled, or should it remain disabled

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

Hi Mark, Thanks for the heads up! I'd like to fill in some missing Korean translations (~ 10 new items), and push the exported strings in the master branch tonight. Cheers, Woonsan On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > > Hi, > > Just a heads up that I'm intended to tag these soon

Re: Tagging 9.0.x

On 03/09/18 16:13, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/09/18 14:47, Rémy Maucherat wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:53 PM Mark Thomas wrote: >> >>> On 03/09/18 11:40, Rémy Maucherat wrote: On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:19 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi all, > > As the start of September i

Re: Tagging 9.0.x

On 03/09/18 17:30, Eric Lilja wrote: > On 2018-09-03 12:19, Mark Thomas wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> As the start of September is here I'm planning to tag 9.0.x (and 8.5.x) >> shortly and roll the next monthly release. >> > > Hi! Will there be a new release of tomcat native to go with 9.0.x? There is

Re: Tagging 9.0.x

On 2018-09-03 12:19, Mark Thomas wrote: Hi all, As the start of September is here I'm planning to tag 9.0.x (and 8.5.x) shortly and roll the next monthly release. Hi! Will there be a new release of tomcat native to go with 9.0.x? - Eric L

Re: Tagging 9.0.x

On 03/09/18 14:47, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:53 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > >> On 03/09/18 11:40, Rémy Maucherat wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:19 PM Mark Thomas wrote: >>> Hi all, As the start of September is here I'm planning to tag 9.0.x (and 8.5.x) >>

Re: Tagging 9.0.x

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:53 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/09/18 11:40, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:19 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> As the start of September is here I'm planning to tag 9.0.x (and 8.5.x) > >> shortly and roll the next monthly release.

Re: Tagging 9.0.x

On 03/09/18 11:40, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:19 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> As the start of September is here I'm planning to tag 9.0.x (and 8.5.x) >> shortly and roll the next monthly release. >> >> I've a couple of things I want to look at first so I'll prob

Re: Tagging 9.0.x

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:19 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi all, > > As the start of September is here I'm planning to tag 9.0.x (and 8.5.x) > shortly and roll the next monthly release. > > I've a couple of things I want to look at first so I'll probably be > tagging in the next day or two. > > What

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On 31/05/18 15:14, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:20 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> June is almost upon us so I'm thinking about the next release round. >> >> I've got a couple of small tasks on my personal TODO list and there are >> one or two BZ issues that could be

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:20 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi all, > > June is almost upon us so I'm thinking about the next release round. > > I've got a couple of small tasks on my personal TODO list and there are > one or two BZ issues that could be resolved. I plan to complete these > tasks and the

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > As we have just passed the start of the month I plan to fix any open > bugs and then tag with a view to releasing end of this week / early next. > +1 On the BZ front, it looks pretty good. Rémy

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

On 08/01/18 09:31, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: > 2018-01-04 23:42 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas : >> Hi all, >> >> It is the start of a new month and the open issue list looks to be clear >> so I'm planning on tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x early next week. > > Is there a need for a new Tomcat-Native build for Win

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2018-01-04 23:42 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas : > Hi all, > > It is the start of a new month and the open issue list looks to be clear > so I'm planning on tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x early next week. Is there a need for a new Tomcat-Native build for Windows, to update to OpenSSL 1.0.2n (released 2017-12-07)

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and friends

On 08/03/17 20:43, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > 2017-03-08 20:52 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas : > >>> @ Gump : not configured, not tested by Gump >>> >>> Tomcat 8.0: >>> @ Buildbot: broken, red - the following test is failing: >>> TEST-org.apache.tomcat.websocket.server.TestCloseBug58624.NIO2.txt >> >> NIO2 w

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and friends

2017-03-08 20:52 GMT+01:00 Mark Thomas : > > @ Gump : not configured, not tested by Gump > > > > Tomcat 8.0: > > @ Buildbot: broken, red - the following test is failing: > > TEST-org.apache.tomcat.websocket.server.TestCloseBug58624.NIO2.txt > > NIO2 was experimental in 8.0.x so I wasn't too concer

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and friends

On 08/03/17 19:36, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: > 2017-03-08 18:11 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas : >> Hi, >> >> Just a heads up that I will be tagging 9.0.x shortly followed by working >> my way through the versions in turn all the way to 6.0.x (unless someone >> beats me to any of them - help always apprecia

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and friends

2017-03-08 18:11 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas : > Hi, > > Just a heads up that I will be tagging 9.0.x shortly followed by working > my way through the versions in turn all the way to 6.0.x (unless someone > beats me to any of them - help always appreciated). > > The Windows signing service is not current

Re: Tagging 9.0.x, 8.5.x, 8.0.x

On 06/06/2016 20:10, Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi, > > I've just finished reviewing the open bugs so, barring any new bugs > appearing over night, I plan to start the release process for the > branches in the subject line tomorrow (in around 12 hours). Looking at the Gump failure in trunk, there looks