You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> on 2007/07/19 15:59:23 UTC
[VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Hi,
this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
the current trunk.
Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
current version).
Please cast your vote
------------------------------------------------
[ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 and why..............
------------------------------------------------
-M
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 7/19/07, Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 we have 2007
>
>
>
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
> > the current trunk.
> > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
> > current version).
> >
> > Please cast your vote
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > -M
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Werner Punz <we...@gmail.com>.
+1 we have 2007
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
> the current trunk.
> Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
> current version).
>
> Please cast your vote
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 and why..............
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> -M
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Jul 19, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
> the current trunk.
> Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
> current version).
>
> Please cast your vote
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 and why..............
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> -M
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Adam had some points, regarding the other subprojects.
What happens to them, since making JSF1.2 trunk is easy, but how do
other subprojects handle this.
Let's rethink this :-)
On 7/19/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1,
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 7/19/07, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [x] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/19/07, Bruno Aranda <brunoaranda@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On 19/07/07, Mario Ivankovits < mario@ops.co.at > wrote:
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
> > > > > the current trunk.
> > > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
> > > > > current version).
> > > > >
> > > > > Please cast your vote
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > [X] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > > > > [ ] +0
> > > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Dennis Byrne <de...@apache.org>.
+1
On 7/19/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1,
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 7/19/07, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [x] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> >
> > On 7/19/07, Bruno Aranda <brunoaranda@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On 19/07/07, Mario Ivankovits < mario@ops.co.at > wrote:
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to
> > > become
> > > > > the current trunk.
> > > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is
> > > the
> > > > > current version).
> > > > >
> > > > > Please cast your vote
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > [X] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > > > > [ ] +0
> > > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
--
Dennis Byrne
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1,
regards,
Martin
On 7/19/07, Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [x] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
>
> On 7/19/07, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On 19/07/07, Mario Ivankovits <mario@ops.co.at > wrote:
> > > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
> > > > the current trunk.
> > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
> > > > current version).
> > > >
> > > > Please cast your vote
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > [X] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > > > [ ] +0
> > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Simon Lessard <si...@gmail.com>.
[x] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
On 7/19/07, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On 19/07/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
> > > the current trunk.
> > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
> > > current version).
> > >
> > > Please cast your vote
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > [X] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > > [ ] +0
> > > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 19/07/07, Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
> > the current trunk.
> > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
> > current version).
> >
> > Please cast your vote
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > [X] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Mario Ivankovits <ma...@ops.co.at>.
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
> the current trunk.
> Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
> current version).
>
> Please cast your vote
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [X] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 and why..............
> ------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Danny Robinson <da...@gmail.com>.
Likewise, although we don't use jsp so considering pusing to JSF 1.2 +
Facelets to get there sooner.
+0 right now.
On 7/20/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> At this point all of my project are based on JSF 1.1, primarily because
> the infrastructure to support JSF 1.2 is not available on the deployment
> platforms.
>
> Paul Spencer
>
>
>
> Adam Winer wrote:
> > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
> >
> > It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
> > definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
> >
> > Just for starters, what about the committers? How many
> > of us can stick to 1.2?
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make 1.2the
> >> trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks too?
> >> Also
> >> after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12 too.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in the
> POM
> >> > of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people,
> >> including
> >> > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository will be
> in
> >> > for a very big surprise.
> >> >
> >> > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
> >> >
> >> > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a
> MyFaces
> >> > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
> >> >
> >> > Paul Spencer
> >> >
> >> > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to
> become
> >> > > the current trunk.
> >> > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch ( 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is
> the
> >> > > current version).
> >> > >
> >> > > Please cast your vote
> >> > >
> >> > > ------------------------------------------------
> >> > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> >> > > [ ] +0
> >> > > [ ] -1 and why..............
> >> > > ------------------------------------------------
> >> > >
> >> > > -M
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
Chordiant Software Inc.
www.chordiant.com
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
At this point all of my project are based on JSF 1.1, primarily because
the infrastructure to support JSF 1.2 is not available on the deployment
platforms.
Paul Spencer
Adam Winer wrote:
> "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
>
> It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
> definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
>
> Just for starters, what about the committers? How many
> of us can stick to 1.2?
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make 1.2 the
>> trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks too?
>> Also
>> after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12 too.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in the POM
>> > of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people,
>> including
>> > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository will be in
>> > for a very big surprise.
>> >
>> > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
>> >
>> > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a MyFaces
>> > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
>> >
>> > Paul Spencer
>> >
>> > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
>> > > the current trunk.
>> > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch ( 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
>> > > current version).
>> > >
>> > > Please cast your vote
>> > >
>> > > ------------------------------------------------
>> > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
>> > > [ ] +0
>> > > [ ] -1 and why..............
>> > > ------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > -M
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
I do not like the idea of "current (symlink to jsf1.2)". To me JSF 1.1
and 1.2 are two products and should be treated as such.
Paul Spencer
Andrew Robinson wrote:
> Not to be too anal, but would:
>
> current (symlink to jsf1.2)
> jsf1.1
> jsf1.2
>
> Be a little more "tidy"?
>
> It should also consider the web site right? Right now, it only shows
> the current/trunk branch. Perhaps the site should be versioned as
> well. Example using tomahawk:
>
> myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/current (symlink to 1.2)
> myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.2
> myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.1
>
> On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
>> > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
>> > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
>>
>> Yeah, but we're just making 1.2 the trunk, not forcing people to use 1.2.
>>
>> Again two active branches current11 and current12 sounds good to me,
>> where
>> current12 has the trunks
>>
>> Cagatay
>>
>> On 7/20/07, Matt Cooper <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > +1 (non-binding)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 7/20/07, Adam Winer < awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
>> > > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
>> > > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
>> > >
>> > > It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
>> > > definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
>> > >
>> > > Just for starters, what about the committers? How many
>> > > of us can stick to 1.2?
>> > >
>> > > -- Adam
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici < cagatay.civici@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make
>> 1.2
>> the
>> > > > trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks
>> too?
>> Also
>> > > > after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12
>> too.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > > > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in
>> the
>> POM
>> > > > > of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people,
>> including
>> > > > > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository
>> will be
>> in
>> > > > > for a very big surprise.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a
>> MyFaces
>> > > > > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Paul Spencer
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>> > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to
>> become
>> > > > > > the current trunk.
>> > > > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (
>> 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is
>> the
>> > > > > > current version).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Please cast your vote
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
>> > > > > > [ ] +0
>> > > > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -M
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
Manfred,
+1 for the following!
> /branches
> /branches/1_1_6
> /branches/1_2_1
> /tags
> /tags/1_1_2
> /tags/1_1_3
> /tags/1_1_4
> /tags/1_1_5
> /tags/1_2_0
> /tags/1_2_1
> /1_1_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.1 development
> /1_2_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.2 development
Are their any changes to the SCM tag in the POMs?
Paul Spencer
Manfred Geiler wrote:
> BTW, thanks Matthias for the successful 1.2 release.
> Good to know that someone keeps the business running while oneself is
> lying in the sun beeing on vacation... ;-)
>
> Regarding the repo structure. We had some discussions before. One
> proposal was the follwing structure. And AFAIR there where no
> objections. I just copy and paste parts of this thread:
> "
> Just had a look at the tomcat repo and I like the structure they use.
> Main issue is that they do not name their trunk folder "trunk" but
> rather give it a name corresponding to the actual major/minor version
> (eg "tc5.5.x"). I like this idea.
> And what is more: moving the current trunk to branches sounds weird to
> me. The 1.1.x is no branch and never will be a real branch of 1.2.x.
> So, why force it into the branches folder? MyFaces 1.1.x and MyFaces
> 1.2.x have more the nature of two separate development trunks because
> they implement different specs. The Tomcat guys address such issues in
> the way I just described. So, why not learn from them?
>
> So, if we follow that path consistently our (sub)projects will each
> have the following structure:
>
> /branches
> /branches/1_1_6
> /branches/1_2_1
> /tags
> /tags/1_1_2
> /tags/1_1_3
> /tags/1_1_4
> /tags/1_1_5
> /tags/1_2_0
> /tags/1_2_1
> /1_1_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.1 development
> /1_2_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.2 development
>
> The great advantage: We can do this step by step without breaking
> anything. All we need to do is point the externals in the "current"
> project to the right trunk folder. We even can do the restructuring
> first and point the externals to the corresponding "1_1_x" trunks and
> in a second step switch "current" to the "1_2_x" trunks without a need
> to restructure again.
> "
>
> WDYT?
>
> --Manfred
>
>
>
> On 7/20/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@mikon.com> wrote:
>> I do not like the idea of "current (symlink to jsf1.2)". To me JSF 1.1
>> and 1.2 are two products and should be treated as such.
>>
>> Paul Spencer
>>
>> Andrew Robinson wrote:
>> > Not to be too anal, but would:
>> >
>> > current (symlink to jsf1.2)
>> > jsf1.1
>> > jsf1.2
>> >
>> > Be a little more "tidy"?
>> >
>> > It should also consider the web site right? Right now, it only shows
>> > the current/trunk branch. Perhaps the site should be versioned as
>> > well. Example using tomahawk:
>> >
>> > myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/current (symlink to 1.2)
>> > myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.2
>> > myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.1
>> >
>> > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
>> >> > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
>> >> > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, but we're just making 1.2 the trunk, not forcing people to
>> use 1.2.
>> >>
>> >> Again two active branches current11 and current12 sounds good to me,
>> >> where
>> >> current12 has the trunks
>> >>
>> >> Cagatay
>> >>
>> >> On 7/20/07, Matt Cooper <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > +1 (non-binding)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 7/20/07, Adam Winer < awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
>> >> > > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
>> >> > > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
>> >> > > definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Just for starters, what about the committers? How many
>> >> > > of us can stick to 1.2?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -- Adam
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici < cagatay.civici@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make
>> >> 1.2
>> >> the
>> >> > > > trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks
>> >> too?
>> >> Also
>> >> > > > after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12
>> >> too.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> > > > > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in
>> >> the
>> >> POM
>> >> > > > > of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people,
>> >> including
>> >> > > > > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository
>> >> will be
>> >> in
>> >> > > > > for a very big surprise.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a
>> >> MyFaces
>> >> > > > > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Paul Spencer
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>> >> > > > > > Hi,
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our
>> group to
>> >> become
>> >> > > > > > the current trunk.
>> >> > > > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (
>> >> 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is
>> >> the
>> >> > > > > > current version).
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Please cast your vote
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > > > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
>> >> > > > > > [ ] +0
>> >> > > > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
>> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > -M
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 7/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > /branches
> > /branches/1_1_6
> > /branches/1_2_1
> > /tags
> > /tags/1_1_2
> > /tags/1_1_3
> > /tags/1_1_4
> > /tags/1_1_5
> > /tags/1_2_0
> > /tags/1_2_1
> > /1_1_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.1 development
> > /1_2_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.2 development
>
> I like that "tomcat style".
>
> -M
>
> >
> > The great advantage: We can do this step by step without breaking
> > anything. All we need to do is point the externals in the "current"
> > project to the right trunk folder. We even can do the restructuring
> > first and point the externals to the corresponding "1_1_x" trunks and
> > in a second step switch "current" to the "1_2_x" trunks without a need
> > to restructure again.
> > "
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > --Manfred
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/20/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@mikon.com> wrote:
> > > I do not like the idea of "current (symlink to jsf1.2)". To me JSF
> 1.1
> > > and 1.2 are two products and should be treated as such.
> > >
> > > Paul Spencer
> > >
> > > Andrew Robinson wrote:
> > > > Not to be too anal, but would:
> > > >
> > > > current (symlink to jsf1.2)
> > > > jsf1.1
> > > > jsf1.2
> > > >
> > > > Be a little more "tidy"?
> > > >
> > > > It should also consider the web site right? Right now, it only shows
> > > > the current/trunk branch. Perhaps the site should be versioned as
> > > > well. Example using tomahawk:
> > > >
> > > > myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/current (symlink to 1.2)
> > > > myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.2
> > > > myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.1
> > > >
> > > > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> > > >> > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> > > >> > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yeah, but we're just making 1.2 the trunk, not forcing people to
> use 1.2.
> > > >>
> > > >> Again two active branches current11 and current12 sounds good to
> me,
> > > >> where
> > > >> current12 has the trunks
> > > >>
> > > >> Cagatay
> > > >>
> > > >> On 7/20/07, Matt Cooper <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > +1 (non-binding)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 7/20/07, Adam Winer < awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> > > >> > > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> > > >> > > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
> > > >> > > definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Just for starters, what about the committers? How many
> > > >> > > of us can stick to 1.2?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > -- Adam
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici < cagatay.civici@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we
> make
> > > >> 1.2
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as
> trunks
> > > >> too?
> > > >> Also
> > > >> > > > after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and
> current12
> > > >> too.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration
> in
> > > >> the
> > > >> POM
> > > >> > > > > of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise
> people,
> > > >> including
> > > >> > > > > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository
> > > >> will be
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > > > for a very big surprise.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be
> for a
> > > >> MyFaces
> > > >> > > > > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Paul Spencer
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > Hi,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our
> group to
> > > >> become
> > > >> > > > > > the current trunk.
> > > >> > > > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (
> > > >> 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > current version).
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Please cast your vote
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > > > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > > >> > > > > > [ ] +0
> > > >> > > > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > -M
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.irian.at
> > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > Development and Courses in English and
> > German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
--
Grant Smith
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
> /branches
> /branches/1_1_6
> /branches/1_2_1
> /tags
> /tags/1_1_2
> /tags/1_1_3
> /tags/1_1_4
> /tags/1_1_5
> /tags/1_2_0
> /tags/1_2_1
> /1_1_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.1 development
> /1_2_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.2 development
I like that "tomcat style".
-M
>
> The great advantage: We can do this step by step without breaking
> anything. All we need to do is point the externals in the "current"
> project to the right trunk folder. We even can do the restructuring
> first and point the externals to the corresponding "1_1_x" trunks and
> in a second step switch "current" to the "1_2_x" trunks without a need
> to restructure again.
> "
>
> WDYT?
>
> --Manfred
>
>
>
> On 7/20/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@mikon.com> wrote:
> > I do not like the idea of "current (symlink to jsf1.2)". To me JSF 1.1
> > and 1.2 are two products and should be treated as such.
> >
> > Paul Spencer
> >
> > Andrew Robinson wrote:
> > > Not to be too anal, but would:
> > >
> > > current (symlink to jsf1.2)
> > > jsf1.1
> > > jsf1.2
> > >
> > > Be a little more "tidy"?
> > >
> > > It should also consider the web site right? Right now, it only shows
> > > the current/trunk branch. Perhaps the site should be versioned as
> > > well. Example using tomahawk:
> > >
> > > myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/current (symlink to 1.2)
> > > myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.2
> > > myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.1
> > >
> > > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> > >> > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> > >> > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, but we're just making 1.2 the trunk, not forcing people to use 1.2.
> > >>
> > >> Again two active branches current11 and current12 sounds good to me,
> > >> where
> > >> current12 has the trunks
> > >>
> > >> Cagatay
> > >>
> > >> On 7/20/07, Matt Cooper <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > +1 (non-binding)
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 7/20/07, Adam Winer < awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> > >> > > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> > >> > > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
> > >> > > definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Just for starters, what about the committers? How many
> > >> > > of us can stick to 1.2?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -- Adam
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici < cagatay.civici@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make
> > >> 1.2
> > >> the
> > >> > > > trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks
> > >> too?
> > >> Also
> > >> > > > after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12
> > >> too.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> > > > > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in
> > >> the
> > >> POM
> > >> > > > > of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people,
> > >> including
> > >> > > > > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository
> > >> will be
> > >> in
> > >> > > > > for a very big surprise.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a
> > >> MyFaces
> > >> > > > > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Paul Spencer
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > >> > > > > > Hi,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to
> > >> become
> > >> > > > > > the current trunk.
> > >> > > > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (
> > >> 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > current version).
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Please cast your vote
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > >> > > > > > [ ] +0
> > >> > > > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > -M
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> Development and Courses in English and
> German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
BTW, thanks Matthias for the successful 1.2 release.
Good to know that someone keeps the business running while oneself is
lying in the sun beeing on vacation... ;-)
Regarding the repo structure. We had some discussions before. One
proposal was the follwing structure. And AFAIR there where no
objections. I just copy and paste parts of this thread:
"
Just had a look at the tomcat repo and I like the structure they use.
Main issue is that they do not name their trunk folder "trunk" but
rather give it a name corresponding to the actual major/minor version
(eg "tc5.5.x"). I like this idea.
And what is more: moving the current trunk to branches sounds weird to
me. The 1.1.x is no branch and never will be a real branch of 1.2.x.
So, why force it into the branches folder? MyFaces 1.1.x and MyFaces
1.2.x have more the nature of two separate development trunks because
they implement different specs. The Tomcat guys address such issues in
the way I just described. So, why not learn from them?
So, if we follow that path consistently our (sub)projects will each
have the following structure:
/branches
/branches/1_1_6
/branches/1_2_1
/tags
/tags/1_1_2
/tags/1_1_3
/tags/1_1_4
/tags/1_1_5
/tags/1_2_0
/tags/1_2_1
/1_1_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.1 development
/1_2_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.2 development
The great advantage: We can do this step by step without breaking
anything. All we need to do is point the externals in the "current"
project to the right trunk folder. We even can do the restructuring
first and point the externals to the corresponding "1_1_x" trunks and
in a second step switch "current" to the "1_2_x" trunks without a need
to restructure again.
"
WDYT?
--Manfred
On 7/20/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@mikon.com> wrote:
> I do not like the idea of "current (symlink to jsf1.2)". To me JSF 1.1
> and 1.2 are two products and should be treated as such.
>
> Paul Spencer
>
> Andrew Robinson wrote:
> > Not to be too anal, but would:
> >
> > current (symlink to jsf1.2)
> > jsf1.1
> > jsf1.2
> >
> > Be a little more "tidy"?
> >
> > It should also consider the web site right? Right now, it only shows
> > the current/trunk branch. Perhaps the site should be versioned as
> > well. Example using tomahawk:
> >
> > myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/current (symlink to 1.2)
> > myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.2
> > myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.1
> >
> > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> >> > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> >> > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
> >>
> >> Yeah, but we're just making 1.2 the trunk, not forcing people to use 1.2.
> >>
> >> Again two active branches current11 and current12 sounds good to me,
> >> where
> >> current12 has the trunks
> >>
> >> Cagatay
> >>
> >> On 7/20/07, Matt Cooper <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > +1 (non-binding)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 7/20/07, Adam Winer < awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> >> > > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> >> > > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
> >> > >
> >> > > It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
> >> > > definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
> >> > >
> >> > > Just for starters, what about the committers? How many
> >> > > of us can stick to 1.2?
> >> > >
> >> > > -- Adam
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici < cagatay.civici@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make
> >> 1.2
> >> the
> >> > > > trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks
> >> too?
> >> Also
> >> > > > after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12
> >> too.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > > > > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in
> >> the
> >> POM
> >> > > > > of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people,
> >> including
> >> > > > > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository
> >> will be
> >> in
> >> > > > > for a very big surprise.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a
> >> MyFaces
> >> > > > > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Paul Spencer
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> >> > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to
> >> become
> >> > > > > > the current trunk.
> >> > > > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (
> >> 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is
> >> the
> >> > > > > > current version).
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Please cast your vote
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> >> > > > > > [ ] +0
> >> > > > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > -M
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
Development and Courses in English and
German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@mikon.com>.
I do not like the idea of "current (symlink to jsf1.2)". To me JSF 1.1
and 1.2 are two products and should be treated as such.
Paul Spencer
Andrew Robinson wrote:
> Not to be too anal, but would:
>
> current (symlink to jsf1.2)
> jsf1.1
> jsf1.2
>
> Be a little more "tidy"?
>
> It should also consider the web site right? Right now, it only shows
> the current/trunk branch. Perhaps the site should be versioned as
> well. Example using tomahawk:
>
> myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/current (symlink to 1.2)
> myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.2
> myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.1
>
> On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
>> > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
>> > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
>>
>> Yeah, but we're just making 1.2 the trunk, not forcing people to use 1.2.
>>
>> Again two active branches current11 and current12 sounds good to me,
>> where
>> current12 has the trunks
>>
>> Cagatay
>>
>> On 7/20/07, Matt Cooper <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > +1 (non-binding)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 7/20/07, Adam Winer < awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
>> > > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
>> > > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
>> > >
>> > > It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
>> > > definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
>> > >
>> > > Just for starters, what about the committers? How many
>> > > of us can stick to 1.2?
>> > >
>> > > -- Adam
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici < cagatay.civici@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make
>> 1.2
>> the
>> > > > trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks
>> too?
>> Also
>> > > > after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12
>> too.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > > > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in
>> the
>> POM
>> > > > > of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people,
>> including
>> > > > > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository
>> will be
>> in
>> > > > > for a very big surprise.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a
>> MyFaces
>> > > > > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Paul Spencer
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>> > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to
>> become
>> > > > > > the current trunk.
>> > > > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (
>> 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is
>> the
>> > > > > > current version).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Please cast your vote
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
>> > > > > > [ ] +0
>> > > > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -M
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>.
Not to be too anal, but would:
current (symlink to jsf1.2)
jsf1.1
jsf1.2
Be a little more "tidy"?
It should also consider the web site right? Right now, it only shows
the current/trunk branch. Perhaps the site should be versioned as
well. Example using tomahawk:
myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/current (symlink to 1.2)
myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.2
myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.1
On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
>
> Yeah, but we're just making 1.2 the trunk, not forcing people to use 1.2.
>
> Again two active branches current11 and current12 sounds good to me, where
> current12 has the trunks
>
> Cagatay
>
> On 7/20/07, Matt Cooper <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/20/07, Adam Winer < awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> > > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> > > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
> > >
> > > It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
> > > definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
> > >
> > > Just for starters, what about the committers? How many
> > > of us can stick to 1.2?
> > >
> > > -- Adam
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici < cagatay.civici@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make 1.2
> the
> > > > trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks too?
> Also
> > > > after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12 too.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in the
> POM
> > > > > of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people,
> including
> > > > > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository will be
> in
> > > > > for a very big surprise.
> > > > >
> > > > > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
> > > > >
> > > > > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a
> MyFaces
> > > > > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul Spencer
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to
> become
> > > > > > the current trunk.
> > > > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch ( 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is
> the
> > > > > > current version).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please cast your vote
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > > > > > [ ] +0
> > > > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -M
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com>.
>
> "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
Yeah, but we're just making 1.2 the trunk, not forcing people to use 1.2.
Again two active branches current11 and current12 sounds good to me, where
current12 has the trunks
Cagatay
On 7/20/07, Matt Cooper <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On 7/20/07, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> > JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
> >
> > It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
> > definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
> >
> > Just for starters, what about the committers? How many
> > of us can stick to 1.2?
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici < cagatay.civici@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make 1.2the
> > > trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks too?
> > Also
> > > after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12 too.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in the
> > POM
> > > > of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people,
> > including
> > > > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository will be
> > in
> > > > for a very big surprise.
> > > >
> > > > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
> > > >
> > > > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a
> > MyFaces
> > > > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
> > > >
> > > > Paul Spencer
> > > >
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to
> > become
> > > > > the current trunk.
> > > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch ( 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is
> > the
> > > > > current version).
> > > > >
> > > > > Please cast your vote
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > > > > [ ] +0
> > > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > -M
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Matt Cooper <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
On 7/20/07, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
> JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
> on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
>
> It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
> definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
>
> Just for starters, what about the committers? How many
> of us can stick to 1.2?
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make 1.2 the
> > trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks too?
> Also
> > after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12 too.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in the POM
> > > of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people,
> including
> > > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository will be in
> > > for a very big surprise.
> > >
> > > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
> > >
> > > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a MyFaces
> > > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
> > >
> > > Paul Spencer
> > >
> > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
> > > > the current trunk.
> > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch ( 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
> > > > current version).
> > > >
> > > > Please cast your vote
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > > > [ ] +0
> > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > -M
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
"Why not": how many users are ready to make the jump to
JSF 1.2? Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
Just for starters, what about the committers? How many
of us can stick to 1.2?
-- Adam
On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make 1.2 the
> trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks too? Also
> after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12 too.
>
>
>
> On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in the POM
> > of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people, including
> > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository will be in
> > for a very big surprise.
> >
> > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
> >
> > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a MyFaces
> > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
> >
> > Paul Spencer
> >
> > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
> > > the current trunk.
> > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch ( 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
> > > current version).
> > >
> > > Please cast your vote
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > > [ ] +0
> > > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > -M
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com>.
About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make 1.2 the
trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks too? Also
after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12 too.
On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in the POM
> of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people, including
> Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository will be in
> for a very big surprise.
>
> Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
>
> Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a MyFaces
> 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
>
> Paul Spencer
>
> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
> > the current trunk.
> > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
> > current version).
> >
> > Please cast your vote
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1 and why..............
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > -M
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in the POM
of next version of MyFaces will be correct. Otherwise people, including
Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository will be in
for a very big surprise.
Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a MyFaces
1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
Paul Spencer
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to become
> the current trunk.
> Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is the
> current version).
>
> Please cast your vote
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 and why..............
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> -M
>
Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
> ------------------------------------------------
> [X] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 and why..............
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> -M
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org