You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to c-dev@axis.apache.org by Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@yahoo.com> on 2004/10/08 14:51:41 UTC
Re: [bug fix progress] Why are we releasing?
Hi All,
We have made good progress with bug fixes.
Today I have closed out:
AXISCPP-95
AXISCPP-94
AXISCPP-64
AXISCPP-57
AXISCPP-65
Accoering to Sanjaya
AXISCPP-103 (and 89)
seems to be OK with new transport.
And we have
AXISCPP-96
pending.
Samisa...
--- John Hawkins <HA...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> AXISCPP-103
> AXISCPP-96
> AXISCPP-95
> AXISCPP-94
> AXISCPP-64
> AXISCPP-57
> AXISCPP-65
>
>
> I would agree with most of them but not 65. This may well be fixed already
> with some of Fred's recent changes and it's not a sev one - just very
> annoying !
>
> OK, if that's decided then I suggest that we make sure that if you are
> working on a JIRA problem then you allocate the problem to yourself in JIRA
> PRIOR to actually finding a fix i.e. make sure everyone knows not to waste
> their time trying to fix it because you are already working on it.
>
> I'm offline for a few days (sorry - bad timing!)
>
>
>
> John Hawkins
>
>
>
>
>
> Samisa Abeysinghe
> <samisa_abeysingh
> e@yahoo.com> To
> Apache AXIS C Developers List
> 07/10/2004 14:35 <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> cc
>
> Please respond to Subject
> "Apache AXIS C Re: Why are we releasing?
> Developers List"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Any others that we need to prioritise for 1.3?
>
> The following are worth looking at and fixing:
>
> AXISCPP-103
> AXISCPP-96
> AXISCPP-95
> AXISCPP-94
> AXISCPP-64
> AXISCPP-57
> AXISCPP-65
>
> I could look at transport and non-Windows stuff in the given order.
>
> I need help looking at Windows specific stuff. (because I have a Linux
> desktop)
>
> Samisa...
>
> --- John Hawkins <HA...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, well, if there are no dissenters then I think we can say that 1.3 is
> > using the new transport.
> > In which case you have no need to tackle the two major defects you were
> > looking at - 171 & 89 - in the 1.3 drop ?
> >
> > In which case we are just waiting for Mark to look into 192 and 193 ?
> >
> > Any others that we need to prioritise for 1.3?
> >
> > John Hawkins
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > Samisa Abeysinghe
>
> > <samisa_abeysingh
>
> > e@yahoo.com>
> To
> > Apache AXIS C Developers List
>
> > 07/10/2004 12:54 <ax...@ws.apache.org>
>
> >
> cc
> >
>
> > Please respond to
> Subject
> > "Apache AXIS C Re: Why are we releasing?
>
> > Developers List"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes it is a good idea to switch to new transport.
> >
> > I think Damitha has already put it in the build for Linux.
> >
> > Samisa...
> >
> > --- John Hawkins <HA...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And I assume that as we are effectively regressing that we are going to
> > use
> > > the new transport?
> > >
> > > John Hawkins
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > Samisa Abeysinghe
> >
> > > <samisa_abeysingh
> >
> > > e@yahoo.com>
> > To
> > > Apache AXIS C Developers List
> >
> > > 07/10/2004 12:17 <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> >
> > >
> > cc
> > >
> >
> > > Please respond to
> > Subject
> > > "Apache AXIS C Re: Why are we releasing?
> >
> > > Developers List"
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Mark Whitlock is going to look into AxisCPP 192 and then 193 (Adrian
> > > Smiths
> > > > problems). These issues would appear to be quite generic and
> > fundamental.
> > >
> > > Great.
> > >
> > > > Samisa - would you like to prioritise?
> > >
> > > Sure I would love to.
> > > AXISCPP-171 - Axis bench and Xerces buffers (already looked into some
> > > detail. still looking into
> > > buffer zise implications)
> > > AXISCPP-89 - Messages larger than 2048 fails (need to test on Windows)
> > >
> > > AXISCPP-184 - < and > in strings (Not sure if high priority)
> > >
> > > And some doc stuff.
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: [bug fix progress] Why are we releasing?
Posted by Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@yahoo.com>.
I managed to solve AXISCPP-96.
I also closed out few more including 198
Are there any others that we need to look into (apart from AXISCPP-103 (and 89), 192 and 193 which
are being attended by Sanjaya and Mark) before 1.3 release.
Samisa...
--- Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
> We have made good progress with bug fixes.
>
> Today I have closed out:
> AXISCPP-95
> AXISCPP-94
> AXISCPP-64
> AXISCPP-57
> AXISCPP-65
>
> Accoering to Sanjaya
> AXISCPP-103 (and 89)
> seems to be OK with new transport.
>
> And we have
> AXISCPP-96
> pending.
>
> Samisa...
>
> --- John Hawkins <HA...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > AXISCPP-103
> > AXISCPP-96
> > AXISCPP-95
> > AXISCPP-94
> > AXISCPP-64
> > AXISCPP-57
> > AXISCPP-65
> >
> >
> > I would agree with most of them but not 65. This may well be fixed already
> > with some of Fred's recent changes and it's not a sev one - just very
> > annoying !
> >
> > OK, if that's decided then I suggest that we make sure that if you are
> > working on a JIRA problem then you allocate the problem to yourself in JIRA
> > PRIOR to actually finding a fix i.e. make sure everyone knows not to waste
> > their time trying to fix it because you are already working on it.
> >
> > I'm offline for a few days (sorry - bad timing!)
> >
> >
> >
> > John Hawkins
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Samisa Abeysinghe
> > <samisa_abeysingh
> > e@yahoo.com> To
> > Apache AXIS C Developers List
> > 07/10/2004 14:35 <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> > cc
> >
> > Please respond to Subject
> > "Apache AXIS C Re: Why are we releasing?
> > Developers List"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Any others that we need to prioritise for 1.3?
> >
> > The following are worth looking at and fixing:
> >
> > AXISCPP-103
> > AXISCPP-96
> > AXISCPP-95
> > AXISCPP-94
> > AXISCPP-64
> > AXISCPP-57
> > AXISCPP-65
> >
> > I could look at transport and non-Windows stuff in the given order.
> >
> > I need help looking at Windows specific stuff. (because I have a Linux
> > desktop)
> >
> > Samisa...
> >
> > --- John Hawkins <HA...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OK, well, if there are no dissenters then I think we can say that 1.3 is
> > > using the new transport.
> > > In which case you have no need to tackle the two major defects you were
> > > looking at - 171 & 89 - in the 1.3 drop ?
> > >
> > > In which case we are just waiting for Mark to look into 192 and 193 ?
> > >
> > > Any others that we need to prioritise for 1.3?
> > >
> > > John Hawkins
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > Samisa Abeysinghe
> >
> > > <samisa_abeysingh
> >
> > > e@yahoo.com>
> > To
> > > Apache AXIS C Developers List
> >
> > > 07/10/2004 12:54 <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> >
> > >
> > cc
> > >
> >
> > > Please respond to
> > Subject
> > > "Apache AXIS C Re: Why are we releasing?
> >
> > > Developers List"
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes it is a good idea to switch to new transport.
> > >
> > > I think Damitha has already put it in the build for Linux.
> > >
> > > Samisa...
> > >
> > > --- John Hawkins <HA...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And I assume that as we are effectively regressing that we are going to
> > > use
> > > > the new transport?
> > > >
> > > > John Hawkins
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Samisa Abeysinghe
> > >
> > > > <samisa_abeysingh
> > >
> > > > e@yahoo.com>
> > > To
> > > > Apache AXIS C Developers List
> > >
> > > > 07/10/2004 12:17 <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> > >
> > > >
> > > cc
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Please respond to
> > > Subject
> > > > "Apache AXIS C Re: Why are we releasing?
> > >
> > > > Developers List"
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [bug fix progress] Why are we releasing?
Posted by Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@yahoo.com>.
I managed to solve AXISCPP-96.
I also closed out few more including 198
Are there any others that we need to look into (apart from AXISCPP-103 (and 89), 192 and 193 which
are being attended by Sanjaya and Mark) before 1.3 release.
Samisa...
--- Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
> We have made good progress with bug fixes.
>
> Today I have closed out:
> AXISCPP-95
> AXISCPP-94
> AXISCPP-64
> AXISCPP-57
> AXISCPP-65
>
> Accoering to Sanjaya
> AXISCPP-103 (and 89)
> seems to be OK with new transport.
>
> And we have
> AXISCPP-96
> pending.
>
> Samisa...
>
> --- John Hawkins <HA...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > AXISCPP-103
> > AXISCPP-96
> > AXISCPP-95
> > AXISCPP-94
> > AXISCPP-64
> > AXISCPP-57
> > AXISCPP-65
> >
> >
> > I would agree with most of them but not 65. This may well be fixed already
> > with some of Fred's recent changes and it's not a sev one - just very
> > annoying !
> >
> > OK, if that's decided then I suggest that we make sure that if you are
> > working on a JIRA problem then you allocate the problem to yourself in JIRA
> > PRIOR to actually finding a fix i.e. make sure everyone knows not to waste
> > their time trying to fix it because you are already working on it.
> >
> > I'm offline for a few days (sorry - bad timing!)
> >
> >
> >
> > John Hawkins
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Samisa Abeysinghe
> > <samisa_abeysingh
> > e@yahoo.com> To
> > Apache AXIS C Developers List
> > 07/10/2004 14:35 <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> > cc
> >
> > Please respond to Subject
> > "Apache AXIS C Re: Why are we releasing?
> > Developers List"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Any others that we need to prioritise for 1.3?
> >
> > The following are worth looking at and fixing:
> >
> > AXISCPP-103
> > AXISCPP-96
> > AXISCPP-95
> > AXISCPP-94
> > AXISCPP-64
> > AXISCPP-57
> > AXISCPP-65
> >
> > I could look at transport and non-Windows stuff in the given order.
> >
> > I need help looking at Windows specific stuff. (because I have a Linux
> > desktop)
> >
> > Samisa...
> >
> > --- John Hawkins <HA...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OK, well, if there are no dissenters then I think we can say that 1.3 is
> > > using the new transport.
> > > In which case you have no need to tackle the two major defects you were
> > > looking at - 171 & 89 - in the 1.3 drop ?
> > >
> > > In which case we are just waiting for Mark to look into 192 and 193 ?
> > >
> > > Any others that we need to prioritise for 1.3?
> > >
> > > John Hawkins
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > Samisa Abeysinghe
> >
> > > <samisa_abeysingh
> >
> > > e@yahoo.com>
> > To
> > > Apache AXIS C Developers List
> >
> > > 07/10/2004 12:54 <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> >
> > >
> > cc
> > >
> >
> > > Please respond to
> > Subject
> > > "Apache AXIS C Re: Why are we releasing?
> >
> > > Developers List"
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes it is a good idea to switch to new transport.
> > >
> > > I think Damitha has already put it in the build for Linux.
> > >
> > > Samisa...
> > >
> > > --- John Hawkins <HA...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And I assume that as we are effectively regressing that we are going to
> > > use
> > > > the new transport?
> > > >
> > > > John Hawkins
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Samisa Abeysinghe
> > >
> > > > <samisa_abeysingh
> > >
> > > > e@yahoo.com>
> > > To
> > > > Apache AXIS C Developers List
> > >
> > > > 07/10/2004 12:17 <ax...@ws.apache.org>
> > >
> > > >
> > > cc
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Please respond to
> > > Subject
> > > > "Apache AXIS C Re: Why are we releasing?
> > >
> > > > Developers List"
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com