Hi Bill, Thanks for all your help with Tomcat 3.3.x. A proposal would be a good start towards a Tomcat 3.3.2 release. I'm taking it as a given that there is sufficient interest for at least one more 3.3 release. If the proposal includes switch from the old style release to Tomcat 4/5's new style, I would be +1 for that.
I am willing to work with you towards a release with either you or me as the RM. I can promise, at minimum, to run the build scripts I have that produce the set of binary and source distribution files that I have used in the past. I could also sign them with my PGP key and try to determine if I need any additional karma to publish the files, which has changed a bit since the last release. As for remaining work on 3.3.2, the only things that pop into my head at the moment is updating the 3.3 coyote connector to deal with the new character encoding behavior and addressing JTC-util's use of J2SE 1.4. I may be able to look at the coyote connector updates this week end. Hopefully together we can end Henri's wait for the next 3.3.x release. :) Cheers, Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Barker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:02 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: jk2 2.0.4 release plan > > > > "Henri Gomez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Mike Anderson a écrit : > > > > > I'll be happy to deliver zips instead of NLMS. for NetWare. > > > > > > Henri (and others) since we are tagging and releasing jk2 > can/should we > > > do the same for jk since I know there is added > functionality (Ping/Pong > > > and timeouts) there as well? > > > > Well, one release at a time, users urge us for jk2 release, > jk release > > could wait some time (Bill ?) > > Yeah, well, I suppose that now that I'm an all-great-and-powerful PMC > member, I could RM a JK release. However, I'd like to get > out a TC 3.3.2 > before that (so, if anyone else wants to RM JK in the > meantime, you've got > my +1 :). Also, if Larry wants to jump in to RM 3.3.2, I'll > step aside, > since he has done such a great job on all of the other 3.3 releases. > > The rules for 3.3 releases are still old-school. I'll try to get a > [PROPOSAL] together by the end of the week. If that's not > rejected, then we > go to a [VOTE] (which will give me time to clarify if I count > PMC members or > committers as binding votes). In the unlikely event that we > get enough > people to care about 3.3 enough to vote (seeing the trouble > that Remy has > getting people to vote :), then there will be a 3.3.2 release. > > As cool as it would be to have a 3.3.3 release, I'd probably > consider the > 3.3.2 release to be an EOL release for the 3.x line. > Security releases > would still be provided, but not much more. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
