Re: Preparing for 2.0 beta 1

After thinking a bit more about this.

Are you taking about separate jars? or separate distributions completely?
I support having separate jars but I think there should be one
distribution that contains all the jars. Perhaps there can be another
with the jars and source code.

Regards


On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:10:53 +0100, "Bordet, Simone"
<[email protected]> said:
> Hi all,
> 
> I have worked out build.xml to make sure the target 'release' works fine
> with all changes that have been made since last release (more than 1 year
> ago !).
> 
> I have reduced the number of test failures down to < 10 (of more than
> 1200 tests), I feel we can go for beta 1 in few days and then fine-tune
> the release.
> 
> I need:
> 
> 1) From Ward, the status of his tests
> 2) From Norm, the status of the new web site
> 3) A volunteer that chases down the I18NStandardMBean bug, if Martin
> Fuzzey does not follow up on this
> 4) Opinions on how the distribution should look like: 
> We need to ship sources separated from binary or everything together ? 
> MX4J tools separated from core JMX implementation ?
> JMX classes jar separated from implementation jar ?
> What is the best way to build MX4J from the distribution ? Follow e.g.
> Tomcat's source distribution style ?
> 
> Many thanks
> 
> Simon
> 


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003,
16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest
developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL,
WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/