You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de> on 2004/08/11 13:51:29 UTC
Syncing 2.1.x and 2.2
In order to port back some of the changes we did in the 2.2 branch to
2.1.x, I created a page on our wiki that keeps track about it.
You can find the site here:
http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/MergingBranches
For this I compared the two source trees with each other and checked the
changes; I hope I did nothing wrong :(
So, whoever has some time can just pick out one of the remaining items and
work on it :)
Some of the blocks shouldn't take more than 10 minutes.
I think the most difficult part is the core (java sources). We have to be
very
careful to not introduce incompatibilities here (for example by removing
deprecated code etc)! So, perhaps we can split the core into different
packages
if required.
Carsten
Carsten Ziegeler
Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.net/weblogs/rael/
Re: Syncing 2.1.x and 2.2
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Vadim Gritsenko dijo:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> In order to port back some of the changes we did in the 2.2 branch to
>> 2.1.x, I created a page on our wiki that keeps track about it.
>> You can find the site here:
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/MergingBranches
>
> I'd added list of changed classes to the page.
Thanks!
BTW, The libs are mine ;-)
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
RE: Syncing 2.1.x and 2.2
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
Great :)
Thanks
Carsten
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:vadim@reverycodes.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:44 PM
> To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Syncing 2.1.x and 2.2
>
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
> > In order to port back some of the changes we did in the 2.2
> branch to
> > 2.1.x, I created a page on our wiki that keeps track about it.
> > You can find the site here:
> >
> > http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/MergingBranches
>
> I'd added list of changed classes to the page.
>
> Vadim
>
Re: Syncing 2.1.x and 2.2
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> In order to port back some of the changes we did in the 2.2 branch to
> 2.1.x, I created a page on our wiki that keeps track about it.
> You can find the site here:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/MergingBranches
I'd added list of changed classes to the page.
Vadim
Re: Cocoon 2.1.6 Release Plan, Re: Syncing 2.1.x and 2.2
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Unico Hommes wrote:
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>
>>> According to the wiki we still have some open blocks/areas.
>>>
>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/MergingBranches
>>>
>>>
>>> In addition it seems that some new things have been checked in
>>> only to one branch, either trunk or 2.1.x, but not to both.
>>> Could everyone please verify that all patches, fixes etc. are
>>> applied accordingly? Of course, there are features that
>>> should only apply to 2.2.
>>>
>>> I see a successful merging as a minimum requirement for the 2.1.6
>>> release.
>>
>>
>> What else beside merging? I'd say checking out all tests and samples
>> is another required step. Going through TODO/Bugzilla items to
>> identify blockers could be the third thing. I'm aware of at least one
>> open issue [1] which could be addressed in 2.1.6
>>
>> Vadim
>>
>> [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=109596886721684
>
>
> Both the test and the code seem to be wrong. IIUC the behavior should be
> that failing to redirect from flow should raise a ProcessingException.
> IOW a 500 response status code should be the correct behavior. However
> the test case tests for a 404 and the actual response code seems to be 200.
Done. More issues which must be fixed before 2.1.6: Failing reader mime-type
anteater tests.
Vadim
Re: Cocoon 2.1.6 Release Plan, Re: Syncing 2.1.x and 2.2
Posted by Unico Hommes <un...@hippo.nl>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> According to the wiki we still have some open blocks/areas.
>>
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/MergingBranches
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition it seems that some new things have been checked in
>> only to one branch, either trunk or 2.1.x, but not to both.
>> Could everyone please verify that all patches, fixes etc. are
>> applied accordingly? Of course, there are features that
>> should only apply to 2.2.
>>
>> I see a successful merging as a minimum requirement for the 2.1.6
>> release.
>
>
> What else beside merging? I'd say checking out all tests and samples
> is another required step. Going through TODO/Bugzilla items to
> identify blockers could be the third thing. I'm aware of at least one
> open issue [1] which could be addressed in 2.1.6
>
> Vadim
>
> [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=109596886721684
Both the test and the code seem to be wrong. IIUC the behavior should be
that failing to redirect from flow should raise a ProcessingException.
IOW a 500 response status code should be the correct behavior. However
the test case tests for a 404 and the actual response code seems to be 200.
--
Unico
RE: Cocoon 2.1.6 Release Plan, Re: Syncing 2.1.x and 2.2
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> > According to the wiki we still have some open blocks/areas.
> >
> >>http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/MergingBranches
> >
> >
> > In addition it seems that some new things have been checked
> in only to
> > one branch, either trunk or 2.1.x, but not to both.
> > Could everyone please verify that all patches, fixes etc.
> are applied
> > accordingly? Of course, there are features that should only
> apply to
> > 2.2.
> >
> > I see a successful merging as a minimum requirement for the 2.1.6
> > release.
>
> What else beside merging? I'd say checking out all tests and
> samples is another required step. Going through TODO/Bugzilla
> items to identify blockers could be the third thing. I'm
> aware of at least one open issue [1] which could be addressed in 2.1.6
>
What about the sitemap reloading/flow script problem you reported recently?
Is this already fixed?
Carsten
Cocoon 2.1.6 Release Plan, Re: Syncing 2.1.x and 2.2
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> According to the wiki we still have some open blocks/areas.
>
>>http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/MergingBranches
>
>
> In addition it seems that some new things have been checked in
> only to one branch, either trunk or 2.1.x, but not to both.
> Could everyone please verify that all patches, fixes etc. are
> applied accordingly? Of course, there are features that
> should only apply to 2.2.
>
> I see a successful merging as a minimum requirement for the 2.1.6
> release.
What else beside merging? I'd say checking out all tests and samples is another
required step. Going through TODO/Bugzilla items to identify blockers could be
the third thing. I'm aware of at least one open issue [1] which could be
addressed in 2.1.6
Vadim
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=109596886721684
RE: Syncing 2.1.x and 2.2
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de>.
According to the wiki we still have some open blocks/areas.
> http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/MergingBranches
In addition it seems that some new things have been checked in
only to one branch, either trunk or 2.1.x, but not to both.
Could everyone please verify that all patches, fixes etc. are
applied accordingly? Of course, there are features that
should only apply to 2.2.
I see a successful merging as a minimum requirement for the 2.1.6
release.
Carsten
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:cziegeler@s-und-n.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 1:51 PM
> To: Cocoon-Dev
> Subject: Syncing 2.1.x and 2.2
>
> In order to port back some of the changes we did in the 2.2
> branch to 2.1.x, I created a page on our wiki that keeps
> track about it.
> You can find the site here:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/MergingBranches
>
> For this I compared the two source trees with each other and
> checked the changes; I hope I did nothing wrong :(
>
> So, whoever has some time can just pick out one of the
> remaining items and work on it :) Some of the blocks
> shouldn't take more than 10 minutes.
>
> I think the most difficult part is the core (java sources).
> We have to be very careful to not introduce incompatibilities
> here (for example by removing deprecated code etc)! So,
> perhaps we can split the core into different packages if required.
>
> Carsten
>
> Carsten Ziegeler
> Open Source Group, S&N AG
> http://www.s-und-n.de
> http://www.osoco.net/weblogs/rael/
>