You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by "Brian K. Wallace" <br...@transmorphix.com> on 2006/03/10 03:13:05 UTC
Issues written against 3.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jesse -
I know you're a non-3.X'er, but for the issues written against 3.0 and
fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can?
Brian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEEOCxaCoPKRow/gARApm7AKCcGn5XKpn6ncfkvIHRtXoyFf+yEwCgj4+K
NTPNOgJL3gsMvmunR48Mr7A=
=Q99H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Issues written against 3.0
Posted by "Brian K. Wallace" <br...@transmorphix.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'd actually love to. As long as I'm the man behind the box I'll keep
patching with a nudge your direction. :-)
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> P.S. You're not going to pop out of a box are you Brian? I'd vote for you if
> you did ;)
>
> On 3/9/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I had actually already decided that I should clarify what I'm thinking
>> before I saw this post..
>>
>> Basically, I've got 0 invested in tapestry 3. So, there would be no
>> itch/economy/etc that would compelling enough to invest any inordinate
>> amount of time in it.
>>
>> That being said, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice if some of those old
>> issues were fixed. I don't have enough time to go through each one of them,
>> but if someone who does care about tap 3 comes forward, who has a trackable
>> history with tapestry and code that we can get a gauge on what they might be
>> doing then I wouldn't have a problem at least starting a vote to get them on
>> board for some more help :)
>>
>> Above all else I'd much prefer that Howard not have to deal with these
>> things. It seems like a waste of skills to have him doing those sorts of
>> things when he obviously excels at doing the more important (imho)
>> design/architecture/evolvement of the framework as a whole. If we need to
>> vote more developers on to the project let's identify who they are and try
>> to work something out.
>>
>> Does that sound fair?
>>
>>
>> On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
> lol - pops out of a box somewhere... okay - that response was worth it
> for that part alone.
>
> Mind if I post to users asking version mindset? I'm still seeing 3.X
> questions being raised - if there's a substantial number, I'll work on
> keeping track of fixes for that so you can bulldoze ahead with the fun
> stuff.
>
> Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
>>>>> Not by me. Unless someone makes a lot of noise about them at least.
>>>>>
>>>>> If people are still on 3.X and care enough about an issue then I hope
> they
>>>>> will speak up. I'm trying to not "blindly" close any old issues, but
> ones I
>>>>> know are definitely fixed in 4.0 > already and aren't worth anyone's
> time
>>>>> spending too many brain cycles on for 3.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's how I feel at least :) Unless a tapestry 3 developer pops out
> of a
>>>>> secret box somewhere I doubt it will be getting a lot of heavy bugfix
>>>>> development...
>>>>>
>>>>> jesse
>>>>> On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
>>>>> Jesse -
>>>>>
>>>>> I know you're a non-3.X 'er, but for the issues written against 3.0and
>>>>> fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can?
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>>
>>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEEOiZaCoPKRow/gARAjV4AKCJLWCRD7pt2UBA9jtefOHVV6+/5ACffq2F
hH7pNflinqxkHF+HdNYR0jA=
=Md/p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Issues written against 3.0
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
P.S. You're not going to pop out of a box are you Brian? I'd vote for you if
you did ;)
On 3/9/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I had actually already decided that I should clarify what I'm thinking
> before I saw this post..
>
> Basically, I've got 0 invested in tapestry 3. So, there would be no
> itch/economy/etc that would compelling enough to invest any inordinate
> amount of time in it.
>
> That being said, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice if some of those old
> issues were fixed. I don't have enough time to go through each one of them,
> but if someone who does care about tap 3 comes forward, who has a trackable
> history with tapestry and code that we can get a gauge on what they might be
> doing then I wouldn't have a problem at least starting a vote to get them on
> board for some more help :)
>
> Above all else I'd much prefer that Howard not have to deal with these
> things. It seems like a waste of skills to have him doing those sorts of
> things when he obviously excels at doing the more important (imho)
> design/architecture/evolvement of the framework as a whole. If we need to
> vote more developers on to the project let's identify who they are and try
> to work something out.
>
> Does that sound fair?
>
>
> On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > lol - pops out of a box somewhere... okay - that response was worth it
> > for that part alone.
> >
> > Mind if I post to users asking version mindset? I'm still seeing 3.X
> > questions being raised - if there's a substantial number, I'll work on
> > keeping track of fixes for that so you can bulldoze ahead with the fun
> > stuff.
> >
> > Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> > > Not by me. Unless someone makes a lot of noise about them at least.
> > >
> > > If people are still on 3.X and care enough about an issue then I hope
> > they
> > > will speak up. I'm trying to not "blindly" close any old issues, but
> > ones I
> > > know are definitely fixed in 4.0 > already and aren't worth anyone's
> > time
> > > spending too many brain cycles on for 3.x.
> > >
> > > That's how I feel at least :) Unless a tapestry 3 developer pops out
> > of a
> > > secret box somewhere I doubt it will be getting a lot of heavy bugfix
> > > development...
> > >
> > > jesse
> > > On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
> > > Jesse -
> > >
> > > I know you're a non-3.X 'er, but for the issues written against 3.0and
> > > fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can?
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >>
> > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> >
> > iD8DBQFEEON+aCoPKRow/gARAuteAJ9xExOTULK5/YLpL7MEYUfsNS0KiACeM4V4
> > 6ob3fdKvwMstrt/ocw9TSLU=
> > =KPPt
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Issues written against 3.0
Posted by Nick Westgate <ni...@key-planning.co.jp>.
Good man, Brian.
Since Jesse mentioned someone making lots of noise, I'll pipe up again
and say that a 3.04 with the double-checked locking fixed would be great.
It was spotted in T3, a patch was supplied for T3, but it was fixed in T4!
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-806
Most of the user list is T4 now, but I try to answer T3 posts if I see one
and have the time/experience to do so. Still on 3 myself, hopefully 4 soon.
Cheers,
Nick.
Brian K. Wallace wrote:
> Bottom line as a developer - I want all releases to be the best they can
> as long as they're supported. As long as there are issues, someone will
> have to look at them. When issues go down, I'm going to be going over to
> documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Issues written against 3.0
Posted by "Brian K. Wallace" <br...@transmorphix.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Oh, yeah - definitely sounds fair. I just happen to be one of those who
has something that can't upgrade out of 3 (can't being business speak
for "not yet"... and we all know how long "yet" can be). That said, I'm
also working with 4, so I'm all for moving forward.
Bottom line as a developer - I want all releases to be the best they can
as long as they're supported. As long as there are issues, someone will
have to look at them. When issues go down, I'm going to be going over to
documentation.
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> I had actually already decided that I should clarify what I'm thinking
> before I saw this post..
>
> Basically, I've got 0 invested in tapestry 3. So, there would be no
> itch/economy/etc that would compelling enough to invest any inordinate
> amount of time in it.
>
> That being said, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice if some of those old
> issues were fixed. I don't have enough time to go through each one of them,
> but if someone who does care about tap 3 comes forward, who has a trackable
> history with tapestry and code that we can get a gauge on what they might be
> doing then I wouldn't have a problem at least starting a vote to get them on
> board for some more help :)
>
> Above all else I'd much prefer that Howard not have to deal with these
> things. It seems like a waste of skills to have him doing those sorts of
> things when he obviously excels at doing the more important (imho)
> design/architecture/evolvement of the framework as a whole. If we need to
> vote more developers on to the project let's identify who they are and try
> to work something out.
>
> Does that sound fair?
>
> On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
> lol - pops out of a box somewhere... okay - that response was worth it
> for that part alone.
>
> Mind if I post to users asking version mindset? I'm still seeing 3.X
> questions being raised - if there's a substantial number, I'll work on
> keeping track of fixes for that so you can bulldoze ahead with the fun
> stuff.
>
> Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
>>>> Not by me. Unless someone makes a lot of noise about them at least.
>>>>
>>>> If people are still on 3.X and care enough about an issue then I hope
> they
>>>> will speak up. I'm trying to not "blindly" close any old issues, but
> ones I
>>>> know are definitely fixed in 4.0 > already and aren't worth anyone's
> time
>>>> spending too many brain cycles on for 3.x.
>>>>
>>>> That's how I feel at least :) Unless a tapestry 3 developer pops out of
> a
>>>> secret box somewhere I doubt it will be getting a lot of heavy bugfix
>>>> development...
>>>>
>>>> jesse
>>>> On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
>>>> Jesse -
>>>>
>>>> I know you're a non-3.X'er, but for the issues written against 3.0 and
>>>> fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can?
>>>>
>>>> Brian
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>>>>
>>
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEEOb4aCoPKRow/gARAlqEAJ4yHKVgePmqVtT3R+84rGGvD7kQMACePRNe
Y7ESgDZCl9DnjRP8QnrwzMo=
=FX3L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Issues written against 3.0
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
I had actually already decided that I should clarify what I'm thinking
before I saw this post..
Basically, I've got 0 invested in tapestry 3. So, there would be no
itch/economy/etc that would compelling enough to invest any inordinate
amount of time in it.
That being said, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice if some of those old
issues were fixed. I don't have enough time to go through each one of them,
but if someone who does care about tap 3 comes forward, who has a trackable
history with tapestry and code that we can get a gauge on what they might be
doing then I wouldn't have a problem at least starting a vote to get them on
board for some more help :)
Above all else I'd much prefer that Howard not have to deal with these
things. It seems like a waste of skills to have him doing those sorts of
things when he obviously excels at doing the more important (imho)
design/architecture/evolvement of the framework as a whole. If we need to
vote more developers on to the project let's identify who they are and try
to work something out.
Does that sound fair?
On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> lol - pops out of a box somewhere... okay - that response was worth it
> for that part alone.
>
> Mind if I post to users asking version mindset? I'm still seeing 3.X
> questions being raised - if there's a substantial number, I'll work on
> keeping track of fixes for that so you can bulldoze ahead with the fun
> stuff.
>
> Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> > Not by me. Unless someone makes a lot of noise about them at least.
> >
> > If people are still on 3.X and care enough about an issue then I hope
> they
> > will speak up. I'm trying to not "blindly" close any old issues, but
> ones I
> > know are definitely fixed in 4.0 > already and aren't worth anyone's
> time
> > spending too many brain cycles on for 3.x.
> >
> > That's how I feel at least :) Unless a tapestry 3 developer pops out of
> a
> > secret box somewhere I doubt it will be getting a lot of heavy bugfix
> > development...
> >
> > jesse
> > On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
> > Jesse -
> >
> > I know you're a non-3.X'er, but for the issues written against 3.0 and
> > fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can?
> >
> > Brian
> >>
> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFEEON+aCoPKRow/gARAuteAJ9xExOTULK5/YLpL7MEYUfsNS0KiACeM4V4
> 6ob3fdKvwMstrt/ocw9TSLU=
> =KPPt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: Long Live 3.x, 3.x FOREVER (was RE: Issues written against 3.0)
Posted by "Brian K. Wallace" <br...@transmorphix.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Well... actually - yes. I know _I_ did. But I tend to stick more to the
Pinky side of life. At least until we take over the world :-)
- -- have to
Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
I think so Brain, but there's already a bug stuck in here from last
time. (pointing between teeth^H^H^H^H^Hreleases)
8-)
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> We all immediately thought of pinky and the brain right? ;) hehe
>
> On 3/12/06, Nick Westgate <ni...@key-planning.co.jp> wrote:
>> Developers aside, there is an installed base of 3.0x apps out there that
>> might never get ported to T4 etc. But if they are migrated to new
>> machines,
>> SMP or perhaps even dual core, they will start failing.
>>
>> Kudos to you and "Brain" ;-) for clearing the deadwood in JIRA.
>> (Sorry Brian, Geoff's typo below gave me a chuckle.)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nick.
>>
>>
>> Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
>>> It does seem like 3.x will be around for a little while longer..I was
>> going
>>> to suggest doing something else to make sure we have enough support
>> focused
>>> there but I still need to do a little homework first.
>>>
>>> On 3/11/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> bumping 'cuz this was getting lost in the hard work Brain and Jesse are
>> up
>>>> to!
>>>>
>>>> No time to comment right now though.
>>>>
>>>> Geoff
>>>>
>>>> On 3/10/06, Mark Stang <ms...@pingidentity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have held off of 4.x because it was changing radically. Then the
>>>> updgrade seemed ok, but we were waiting on Spindle. Then along comes
>> the
>>>> discussion of 5.0 which makes all of my converted code to 4.x a throw
>>>> away. However, we were still planning on going to 4.x but now it looks
>> as
>>>> if by the time Geoff gets done with Spindle for 4.x it will be time to
>>>> move on to 5.0.
>>>>
>>>>> So as far as I am concerned 3.x FOREVER, LONG LIVE 3.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEFQpcaCoPKRow/gARAsMRAKCglLN12KeYDp9Hq8tf5jcqJBdLMACgoV6s
/YCwVOeRtBbxlI0/f/8TqHc=
=rL7Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Long Live 3.x, 3.x FOREVER (was RE: Issues written against 3.0)
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
We all immediately thought of pinky and the brain right? ;) hehe
On 3/12/06, Nick Westgate <ni...@key-planning.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Developers aside, there is an installed base of 3.0x apps out there that
> might never get ported to T4 etc. But if they are migrated to new
> machines,
> SMP or perhaps even dual core, they will start failing.
>
> Kudos to you and "Brain" ;-) for clearing the deadwood in JIRA.
> (Sorry Brian, Geoff's typo below gave me a chuckle.)
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
>
> Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> > It does seem like 3.x will be around for a little while longer..I was
> going
> > to suggest doing something else to make sure we have enough support
> focused
> > there but I still need to do a little homework first.
> >
> > On 3/11/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>bumping 'cuz this was getting lost in the hard work Brain and Jesse are
> up
> >>to!
> >>
> >>No time to comment right now though.
> >>
> >>Geoff
> >>
> >>On 3/10/06, Mark Stang <ms...@pingidentity.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>We have held off of 4.x because it was changing radically. Then the
> >>
> >>updgrade seemed ok, but we were waiting on Spindle. Then along comes
> the
> >>discussion of 5.0 which makes all of my converted code to 4.x a throw
> >>away. However, we were still planning on going to 4.x but now it looks
> as
> >>if by the time Geoff gets done with Spindle for 4.x it will be time to
> >>move on to 5.0.
> >>
> >>>So as far as I am concerned 3.x FOREVER, LONG LIVE 3.x.
> >>>
> >>>regards,
> >>>
> >>>Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: Long Live 3.x, 3.x FOREVER (was RE: Issues written against 3.0)
Posted by Nick Westgate <ni...@key-planning.co.jp>.
Developers aside, there is an installed base of 3.0x apps out there that
might never get ported to T4 etc. But if they are migrated to new machines,
SMP or perhaps even dual core, they will start failing.
Kudos to you and "Brain" ;-) for clearing the deadwood in JIRA.
(Sorry Brian, Geoff's typo below gave me a chuckle.)
Cheers,
Nick.
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> It does seem like 3.x will be around for a little while longer..I was going
> to suggest doing something else to make sure we have enough support focused
> there but I still need to do a little homework first.
>
> On 3/11/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>bumping 'cuz this was getting lost in the hard work Brain and Jesse are up
>>to!
>>
>>No time to comment right now though.
>>
>>Geoff
>>
>>On 3/10/06, Mark Stang <ms...@pingidentity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>We have held off of 4.x because it was changing radically. Then the
>>
>>updgrade seemed ok, but we were waiting on Spindle. Then along comes the
>>discussion of 5.0 which makes all of my converted code to 4.x a throw
>>away. However, we were still planning on going to 4.x but now it looks as
>>if by the time Geoff gets done with Spindle for 4.x it will be time to
>>move on to 5.0.
>>
>>>So as far as I am concerned 3.x FOREVER, LONG LIVE 3.x.
>>>
>>>regards,
>>>
>>>Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Long Live 3.x, 3.x FOREVER (was RE: Issues written against 3.0)
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
It does seem like 3.x will be around for a little while longer..I was going
to suggest doing something else to make sure we have enough support focused
there but I still need to do a little homework first.
On 3/11/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> bumping 'cuz this was getting lost in the hard work Brain and Jesse are up
> to!
>
> No time to comment right now though.
>
> Geoff
>
> On 3/10/06, Mark Stang <ms...@pingidentity.com> wrote:
> > We have held off of 4.x because it was changing radically. Then the
> updgrade seemed ok, but we were waiting on Spindle. Then along comes the
> discussion of 5.0 which makes all of my converted code to 4.x a throw
> away. However, we were still planning on going to 4.x but now it looks as
> if by the time Geoff gets done with Spindle for 4.x it will be time to
> move on to 5.0.
> >
> > So as far as I am concerned 3.x FOREVER, LONG LIVE 3.x.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian K. Wallace [mailto:brian@transmorphix.com]
> > Sent: Thu 3/9/2006 7:25 PM
> > To: Tapestry development
> > Subject: Re: Issues written against 3.0
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > lol - pops out of a box somewhere... okay - that response was worth it
> > for that part alone.
> >
> > Mind if I post to users asking version mindset? I'm still seeing 3.X
> > questions being raised - if there's a substantial number, I'll work on
> > keeping track of fixes for that so you can bulldoze ahead with the fun
> > stuff.
> >
> > Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> > > Not by me. Unless someone makes a lot of noise about them at least.
> > >
> > > If people are still on 3.X and care enough about an issue then I hope
> they
> > > will speak up. I'm trying to not "blindly" close any old issues, but
> ones I
> > > know are definitely fixed in 4.0 > already and aren't worth anyone's
> time
> > > spending too many brain cycles on for 3.x.
> > >
> > > That's how I feel at least :) Unless a tapestry 3 developer pops out
> of a
> > > secret box somewhere I doubt it will be getting a lot of heavy bugfix
> > > development...
> > >
> > > jesse
> > > On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
> > > Jesse -
> > >
> > > I know you're a non-3.X'er, but for the issues written against 3.0and
> > > fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can?
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >>
> > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> >
> > iD8DBQFEEON+aCoPKRow/gARAuteAJ9xExOTULK5/YLpL7MEYUfsNS0KiACeM4V4
> > 6ob3fdKvwMstrt/ocw9TSLU=
> > =KPPt
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> Get help with Spindle:
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/spindle-user
> Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> Feature Updates: http://spindle.sf.net/updates
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: Long Live 3.x, 3.x FOREVER (was RE: Issues written against 3.0)
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
bumping 'cuz this was getting lost in the hard work Brain and Jesse are up to!
No time to comment right now though.
Geoff
On 3/10/06, Mark Stang <ms...@pingidentity.com> wrote:
> We have held off of 4.x because it was changing radically. Then the updgrade seemed ok, but we were waiting on Spindle. Then along comes the discussion of 5.0 which makes all of my converted code to 4.x a throw away. However, we were still planning on going to 4.x but now it looks as if by the time Geoff gets done with Spindle for 4.x it will be time to move on to 5.0.
>
> So as far as I am concerned 3.x FOREVER, LONG LIVE 3.x.
>
> regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian K. Wallace [mailto:brian@transmorphix.com]
> Sent: Thu 3/9/2006 7:25 PM
> To: Tapestry development
> Subject: Re: Issues written against 3.0
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> lol - pops out of a box somewhere... okay - that response was worth it
> for that part alone.
>
> Mind if I post to users asking version mindset? I'm still seeing 3.X
> questions being raised - if there's a substantial number, I'll work on
> keeping track of fixes for that so you can bulldoze ahead with the fun
> stuff.
>
> Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> > Not by me. Unless someone makes a lot of noise about them at least.
> >
> > If people are still on 3.X and care enough about an issue then I hope they
> > will speak up. I'm trying to not "blindly" close any old issues, but ones I
> > know are definitely fixed in 4.0 > already and aren't worth anyone's time
> > spending too many brain cycles on for 3.x.
> >
> > That's how I feel at least :) Unless a tapestry 3 developer pops out of a
> > secret box somewhere I doubt it will be getting a lot of heavy bugfix
> > development...
> >
> > jesse
> > On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
> > Jesse -
> >
> > I know you're a non-3.X'er, but for the issues written against 3.0 and
> > fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can?
> >
> > Brian
> >>
> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFEEON+aCoPKRow/gARAuteAJ9xExOTULK5/YLpL7MEYUfsNS0KiACeM4V4
> 6ob3fdKvwMstrt/ocw9TSLU=
> =KPPt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
--
The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
Get help with Spindle:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/spindle-user
Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
Feature Updates: http://spindle.sf.net/updates
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Long Live 3.x, 3.x FOREVER (was RE: Issues written against 3.0)
Posted by Mark Stang <ms...@pingidentity.com>.
We have held off of 4.x because it was changing radically. Then the updgrade seemed ok, but we were waiting on Spindle. Then along comes the discussion of 5.0 which makes all of my converted code to 4.x a throw away. However, we were still planning on going to 4.x but now it looks as if by the time Geoff gets done with Spindle for 4.x it will be time to move on to 5.0.
So as far as I am concerned 3.x FOREVER, LONG LIVE 3.x.
regards,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian K. Wallace [mailto:brian@transmorphix.com]
Sent: Thu 3/9/2006 7:25 PM
To: Tapestry development
Subject: Re: Issues written against 3.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
lol - pops out of a box somewhere... okay - that response was worth it
for that part alone.
Mind if I post to users asking version mindset? I'm still seeing 3.X
questions being raised - if there's a substantial number, I'll work on
keeping track of fixes for that so you can bulldoze ahead with the fun
stuff.
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> Not by me. Unless someone makes a lot of noise about them at least.
>
> If people are still on 3.X and care enough about an issue then I hope they
> will speak up. I'm trying to not "blindly" close any old issues, but ones I
> know are definitely fixed in 4.0 > already and aren't worth anyone's time
> spending too many brain cycles on for 3.x.
>
> That's how I feel at least :) Unless a tapestry 3 developer pops out of a
> secret box somewhere I doubt it will be getting a lot of heavy bugfix
> development...
>
> jesse
> On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
> Jesse -
>
> I know you're a non-3.X'er, but for the issues written against 3.0 and
> fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can?
>
> Brian
>>
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEEON+aCoPKRow/gARAuteAJ9xExOTULK5/YLpL7MEYUfsNS0KiACeM4V4
6ob3fdKvwMstrt/ocw9TSLU=
=KPPt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Issues written against 3.0
Posted by "Brian K. Wallace" <br...@transmorphix.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
lol - pops out of a box somewhere... okay - that response was worth it
for that part alone.
Mind if I post to users asking version mindset? I'm still seeing 3.X
questions being raised - if there's a substantial number, I'll work on
keeping track of fixes for that so you can bulldoze ahead with the fun
stuff.
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> Not by me. Unless someone makes a lot of noise about them at least.
>
> If people are still on 3.X and care enough about an issue then I hope they
> will speak up. I'm trying to not "blindly" close any old issues, but ones I
> know are definitely fixed in 4.0 > already and aren't worth anyone's time
> spending too many brain cycles on for 3.x.
>
> That's how I feel at least :) Unless a tapestry 3 developer pops out of a
> secret box somewhere I doubt it will be getting a lot of heavy bugfix
> development...
>
> jesse
> On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
> Jesse -
>
> I know you're a non-3.X'er, but for the issues written against 3.0 and
> fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can?
>
> Brian
>>
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEEON+aCoPKRow/gARAuteAJ9xExOTULK5/YLpL7MEYUfsNS0KiACeM4V4
6ob3fdKvwMstrt/ocw9TSLU=
=KPPt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Issues written against 3.0
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
Not by me. Unless someone makes a lot of noise about them at least.
If people are still on 3.X and care enough about an issue then I hope they
will speak up. I'm trying to not "blindly" close any old issues, but ones I
know are definitely fixed in 4.0 > already and aren't worth anyone's time
spending too many brain cycles on for 3.x.
That's how I feel at least :) Unless a tapestry 3 developer pops out of a
secret box somewhere I doubt it will be getting a lot of heavy bugfix
development...
jesse
On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <br...@transmorphix.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jesse -
>
> I know you're a non-3.X'er, but for the issues written against 3.0 and
> fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can?
>
> Brian
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
>
> iD8DBQFEEOCxaCoPKRow/gARApm7AKCcGn5XKpn6ncfkvIHRtXoyFf+yEwCgj4+K
> NTPNOgJL3gsMvmunR48Mr7A=
> =Q99H
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>