Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

There are over 100 issues marked fixed for Continuum 1.2, with 30+
still outstanding.

I'd like to release 1.2 soon, and slot the remaining issues into
1.2.1, 1.2.2, etc.

Thoughts?

-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>]

I'm sure releasing redback is not as complicated as releasing maven scm

:-))))

--
Olivier

2008/8/29 Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Today I will call a vote on scm 1.1.
>>> Then a vote on new continuum parent version 2.
>>
>> Great!
>
> ... and it looks like that all happened, but now there's a snapshot
> dependency on Redback.
>
> I commented on the commit and the issue I think is related
> (CONTINUUM-1858) to see if it can go on a branch, but on second
> thought I think I'd like to branch for the release instead.  That
> seems less disruptive to the people who want to continue with their
> work on trunk.
>
> So, branch for 1.2.x and change trunk to 1.3 ?
>
> I'm not sure how extensive the changes in Redback are, but I'm
> concerned about switching from 1.0 to 1.1 this late in the game.
>
> WDYT?
>
> --
> Wendy
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:

> But before I'd like to give a chance to Emmanuel to finish the redback
> stuff :-).
> It's only one new admin user page : it's not a big change.

If you're going to wait for that, then you might as well delete the
branch and do the release from the trunk.  The only thing different on
the branch should be the release notes.

-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>]

But before I'd like to give a chance to Emmanuel to finish the redback
stuff :-).
It's only one new admin user page : it's not a big change.

--
Olivier

2008/8/31 Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> As I have worked a lot on continuum (and dependant libraries) since
>> the last release, I'd like to make this release myself.
>>
>> Any objections ?
>> If not I will do it tomorrow with using my company bandwith (as my
>> home one is small ;-) ).
>
> It's all yours!  I'll do some testing today on the latest snapshot.
>
> I'd just ask that we don't add anything else for 1.2.0. :)  After nine
> months, there's plenty in there to release, and any last minute
> changes are a risk.
>
> --
> Wendy
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:

> As I have worked a lot on continuum (and dependant libraries) since
> the last release, I'd like to make this release myself.
>
> Any objections ?
> If not I will do it tomorrow with using my company bandwith (as my
> home one is small ;-) ).

It's all yours!  I'll do some testing today on the latest snapshot.

I'd just ask that we don't add anything else for 1.2.0. :)  After nine
months, there's plenty in there to release, and any last minute
changes are a risk.

-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Maria Odea Ching <oc...@apache.org>]

oops, sorry.. hehe 1.2.0 :)

-deng

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:

> 1.2 or 1.2.0 ?
>
> :-)
>
> --
> Olivier
>
> 2008/8/31 Maria Odea Ching <oc...@apache.org>:
> > go go 1.2! :)
> >
> > -deng
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> Fixed.
> >> As I have worked a lot on continuum (and dependant libraries) since
> >> the last release, I'd like to make this release myself.
> >>
> >> Any objections ?
> >> If not I will do it tomorrow with using my company bandwith (as my
> >> home one is small ;-) ).
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Olivier
> >>
> >> 2008/8/31 Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> >> > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'll be away this morning, but I'm happy to un-do my changes, merge
> >> >> yours, and test if you get it fixed on trunk today.
> >> >
> >> > Current status is... Olivier fixed CONTINUUM-1831 (NPE when saving
> >> > Appearance) and merged the changes to the branch, (thanks!) and I also
> >> > fixed a different NPE I was seeing when I clicked on the Appearance
> >> > menu item (CONTINUUM-1863).  (Someone should probably review that, I
> >> > haven't touched code in a while. :) )
> >> >
> >> > However, there's a problem with the Jetty bundle which I think is
> >> > related to CONTINUUM-1252 (Ability to pre-configure general
> >> > configuration).  I've reopened that one with a comment.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Wendy
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>]

1.2 or 1.2.0 ?

:-)

--
Olivier

2008/8/31 Maria Odea Ching <oc...@apache.org>:
> go go 1.2! :)
>
> -deng
>
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Fixed.
>> As I have worked a lot on continuum (and dependant libraries) since
>> the last release, I'd like to make this release myself.
>>
>> Any objections ?
>> If not I will do it tomorrow with using my company bandwith (as my
>> home one is small ;-) ).
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier
>>
>> 2008/8/31 Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
>> > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'll be away this morning, but I'm happy to un-do my changes, merge
>> >> yours, and test if you get it fixed on trunk today.
>> >
>> > Current status is... Olivier fixed CONTINUUM-1831 (NPE when saving
>> > Appearance) and merged the changes to the branch, (thanks!) and I also
>> > fixed a different NPE I was seeing when I clicked on the Appearance
>> > menu item (CONTINUUM-1863).  (Someone should probably review that, I
>> > haven't touched code in a while. :) )
>> >
>> > However, there's a problem with the Jetty bundle which I think is
>> > related to CONTINUUM-1252 (Ability to pre-configure general
>> > configuration).  I've reopened that one with a comment.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Wendy
>> >
>>
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Maria Odea Ching <oc...@apache.org>]

go go 1.2! :)

-deng

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> Fixed.
> As I have worked a lot on continuum (and dependant libraries) since
> the last release, I'd like to make this release myself.
>
> Any objections ?
> If not I will do it tomorrow with using my company bandwith (as my
> home one is small ;-) ).
>
>
> --
> Olivier
>
> 2008/8/31 Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'll be away this morning, but I'm happy to un-do my changes, merge
> >> yours, and test if you get it fixed on trunk today.
> >
> > Current status is... Olivier fixed CONTINUUM-1831 (NPE when saving
> > Appearance) and merged the changes to the branch, (thanks!) and I also
> > fixed a different NPE I was seeing when I clicked on the Appearance
> > menu item (CONTINUUM-1863).  (Someone should probably review that, I
> > haven't touched code in a while. :) )
> >
> > However, there's a problem with the Jetty bundle which I think is
> > related to CONTINUUM-1252 (Ability to pre-configure general
> > configuration).  I've reopened that one with a comment.
> >
> > --
> > Wendy
> >
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>]

Hi,
Fixed.
As I have worked a lot on continuum (and dependant libraries) since
the last release, I'd like to make this release myself.

Any objections ?
If not I will do it tomorrow with using my company bandwith (as my
home one is small ;-) ).


--
Olivier

2008/8/31 Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll be away this morning, but I'm happy to un-do my changes, merge
>> yours, and test if you get it fixed on trunk today.
>
> Current status is... Olivier fixed CONTINUUM-1831 (NPE when saving
> Appearance) and merged the changes to the branch, (thanks!) and I also
> fixed a different NPE I was seeing when I clicked on the Appearance
> menu item (CONTINUUM-1863).  (Someone should probably review that, I
> haven't touched code in a while. :) )
>
> However, there's a problem with the Jetty bundle which I think is
> related to CONTINUUM-1252 (Ability to pre-configure general
> configuration).  I've reopened that one with a comment.
>
> --
> Wendy
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll be away this morning, but I'm happy to un-do my changes, merge
> yours, and test if you get it fixed on trunk today.

Current status is... Olivier fixed CONTINUUM-1831 (NPE when saving
Appearance) and merged the changes to the branch, (thanks!) and I also
fixed a different NPE I was seeing when I clicked on the Appearance
menu item (CONTINUUM-1863).  (Someone should probably review that, I
haven't touched code in a while. :) )

However, there's a problem with the Jetty bundle which I think is
related to CONTINUUM-1252 (Ability to pre-configure general
configuration).  I've reopened that one with a comment.

-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Essentially, the Appearance feature has been removed in 1.2.0, because
> it does not work.

... and it looks like you're working on this on trunk as we speak!
(Missing from irc though. :) )

I'll be away this morning, but I'm happy to un-do my changes, merge
yours, and test if you get it fixed on trunk today.

Thanks,
-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:

> As commented in the issue.
> -1 to move CONTINUUM-1831 to 1.2.1
> It's a regression !
> I don't think having a page which always failed with a NPE it's good !!

I agree that releasing something with a NPE is not good.  On the
branch, that no longer happens, because (unless you know the url)
there's no way to get to the page.  It's not on the menu and not
mentioned in the docs.

Essentially, the Appearance feature has been removed in 1.2.0, because
it does not work.

-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>]

Hi,
As commented in the issue.
-1 to move CONTINUUM-1831 to 1.2.1
It's a regression !
I don't think having a page which always failed with a NPE it's good !!
--
Olivier

2008/8/30 Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm keeping notes here:
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CONTINUUM/Continuum+1.2.0+Release+Diary
>
> Very close, but it's late here so I'll pick it up tomorrow afternoon.
>
> --
> Wendy
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm keeping notes here:
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CONTINUUM/Continuum+1.2.0+Release+Diary

Very close, but it's late here so I'll pick it up tomorrow afternoon.

-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 30/08/2008, at 3:02 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
>
>> Hmmm... I'm thinking a move to Redback 1.1 belongs in Continuum 1.3+.
>>
>> Historically we've seen issues with the Redback integration.  (Not
>> necessarily a problem in Redback itself, just the complication of
>> integrating it into a different app.)  I don't want to risk
>> destabilizing Continuum 1.2 by moving to a new version of Redback.
>
> The code is identical, all that changed is the group ID.

Well, then why is it 1.1?  That just scares people. :)

Based on that news it could go into 1.2.x, but given the 100+ issues
already solved for 1.2 I'd just as soon stop now and get 1.2 out with
all the new features it _already_ has.

I'm keeping notes here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CONTINUUM/Continuum+1.2.0+Release+Diary

So far, the only real problem I see is the NPE for the Appearance
link.  I'm planning to comment out a few things so it doesn't show on
the menu or in the docs for 1.2.0.  Problem solved. :)  Once it's
fixed on trunk we can decide whether to merge it back.

-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

On 30/08/2008, at 3:02 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:

> Hmmm... I'm thinking a move to Redback 1.1 belongs in Continuum 1.3+.
>
> Historically we've seen issues with the Redback integration.  (Not
> necessarily a problem in Redback itself, just the complication of
> integrating it into a different app.)  I don't want to risk
> destabilizing Continuum 1.2 by moving to a new version of Redback.

The code is identical, all that changed is the group ID.

>
>
>>> I'm not sure what the version number on trunk should be if I branch
>>> for 1.2.0.  But we can sort that out later I guess.
>>
>> 1.3 or 2.0, I don't know yet.
>
> /me _leans_ towards 1.3, incremental change is good.

+1. We've still got a lot of little things to get right before the big  
things :)

- Brett

--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Emmanuel Venisse
<em...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (Though I'm a bit confused about the versions-- your changes are in
>> Redback 1.1-SNAPSHOT now, are they going to be merged to Redback 1.0.x
>> for a release?)
>
> As discussed on the redback list, redback 1.0.x must be removed.
> The code in redback trunk and branch are the same and we don't have
> modifications since 1.0.3 except changes I've done about the role page.
>
>> In general, will Continuum 1.2.x stay with Redback 1.0.x?
>
> No, we'll move to 1.1.

Hmmm... I'm thinking a move to Redback 1.1 belongs in Continuum 1.3+.

Historically we've seen issues with the Redback integration.  (Not
necessarily a problem in Redback itself, just the complication of
integrating it into a different app.)  I don't want to risk
destabilizing Continuum 1.2 by moving to a new version of Redback.

>> I'm not sure what the version number on trunk should be if I branch
>> for 1.2.0.  But we can sort that out later I guess.
>
>1.3 or 2.0, I don't know yet.

/me _leans_ towards 1.3, incremental change is good.

-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Emmanuel Venisse
> <em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> So, branch for 1.2.x and change trunk to 1.3 ?
> >
> > ok.
>
> >> I'm not sure how extensive the changes in Redback are, but I'm
> >> concerned about switching from 1.0 to 1.1 this late in the game.
> >
> > When do you want to start the release?
>
> Today, barring anything blocking that I don't know about.
>
> > I'll can finish my changes for Monday evening.
> > If you can wait until it, it would be cool, otherwise it will go in 1.2.1
> > with redback 1.0.3
>
> I think that would be best.
>
> (Though I'm a bit confused about the versions-- your changes are in
> Redback 1.1-SNAPSHOT now, are they going to be merged to Redback 1.0.x
> for a release?)


As discussed on the redback list, redback 1.0.x must be removed.
The code in redback trunk and branch are the same and we don't have
modifications since 1.0.3 except changes I've done about the role page.


> In general, will Continuum 1.2.x stay with Redback 1.0.x?


No, we'll move to 1.1.

>
> I'm not sure what the version number on trunk should be if I branch
> for 1.2.0.  But we can sort that out later I guess.


1.3 or 2.0, I don't know yet.


>
>
> --
> Wendy
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Emmanuel Venisse
<em...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> So, branch for 1.2.x and change trunk to 1.3 ?
>
> ok.

>> I'm not sure how extensive the changes in Redback are, but I'm
>> concerned about switching from 1.0 to 1.1 this late in the game.
>
> When do you want to start the release?

Today, barring anything blocking that I don't know about.

> I'll can finish my changes for Monday evening.
> If you can wait until it, it would be cool, otherwise it will go in 1.2.1
> with redback 1.0.3

I think that would be best.

(Though I'm a bit confused about the versions-- your changes are in
Redback 1.1-SNAPSHOT now, are they going to be merged to Redback 1.0.x
for a release?)

In general, will Continuum 1.2.x stay with Redback 1.0.x?

I'm not sure what the version number on trunk should be if I branch
for 1.2.0.  But we can sort that out later I guess.

-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Today I will call a vote on scm 1.1.
> >> Then a vote on new continuum parent version 2.
> >
> > Great!
>
> ... and it looks like that all happened, but now there's a snapshot
> dependency on Redback.


Yes :-)


>
>
> I commented on the commit and the issue I think is related
> (CONTINUUM-1858) to see if it can go on a branch, but on second
> thought I think I'd like to branch for the release instead.  That
> seems less disruptive to the people who want to continue with their
> work on trunk.
>
> So, branch for 1.2.x and change trunk to 1.3 ?


ok.


>
> I'm not sure how extensive the changes in Redback are, but I'm
> concerned about switching from 1.0 to 1.1 this late in the game.


When do you want to start the release?

I'll can finish my changes for Monday evening.
If you can wait until it, it would be cool, otherwise it will go in 1.2.1
with redback 1.0.3

My changes to do to finish my latest changes:
- Add parent roles in the role page
- Remove all users in 'available users' list if they are defined in a parent
role
- it is impossible to modify the role description actually

It isn't a big work to do and the actual code works fine, but I think I was
alone to test it :)

Emmanuel


>
> WDYT?
>
> --
> Wendy
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Today I will call a vote on scm 1.1.
>> Then a vote on new continuum parent version 2.
>
> Great!

... and it looks like that all happened, but now there's a snapshot
dependency on Redback.

I commented on the commit and the issue I think is related
(CONTINUUM-1858) to see if it can go on a branch, but on second
thought I think I'd like to branch for the release instead.  That
seems less disruptive to the people who want to continue with their
work on trunk.

So, branch for 1.2.x and change trunk to 1.3 ?

I'm not sure how extensive the changes in Redback are, but I'm
concerned about switching from 1.0 to 1.1 this late in the game.

WDYT?

-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:

> Today I will call a vote on scm 1.1.
> Then a vote on new continuum parent version 2.

Great!

> Concerning the blocking issue CONTINUUM-1831, I will try to work on
> this week end (but If you have time to work on you are welcome ;-) ).
>
> Concerning CONTINUUM-1489, I have other fixes to apply in order to
> fully remove plexus-formica and to enable proxy use (but I don't have
> testing proxy for this).

I don't consider either of these blockers.  If the configuration has
been moved to plain text (not sure if that was here or Archiva?) then
there's an easy workaround of editing the xml file.

I've been thinking about setting up a proxy here just so I can fully
experience the pain of living behind one. :)  But imo this can be
fixed in a .1 or .2 if it doesn't make into 1.2[.0].

-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>]

Hi,
Today I will call a vote on scm 1.1.
Then a vote on new continuum parent version 2.

Concerning the blocking issue CONTINUUM-1831, I will try to work on
this week end (but If you have time to work on you are welcome ;-) ).

Concerning CONTINUUM-1489, I have other fixes to apply in order to
fully remove plexus-formica and to enable proxy use (but I don't have
testing proxy for this).

Thanks,
--
Olivier

2008/8/22 Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Yes we can.
>> But we are dependant on scm release (which is dependant on maven
>> parent pom release too :-) ).
>> FYI, I have tested git provider an it works fine. (if you want to test
>> I have created two repos [1] in git-hub for testing purpose)
>> The only limitation is the support of project with modules (CONTINUUM-1843).
>> By the way, I'd like to fix CONTINUUM-1831 which IMHO is blocker for a release.
>
> Where are we on all this?
>
> I really want to get a release out this month, even if it means
> branching prior to the changes that introduced snapshots and doing it
> as a milestone or something.  I'm sure there will be build issues to
> work through, there always are. :)  It's just been far too long
> already-- I talked about this stuff back in May at a local conference,
> and Christian just presented at Agile 2008.
>
> --
> Wendy
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yes we can.
> But we are dependant on scm release (which is dependant on maven
> parent pom release too :-) ).
> FYI, I have tested git provider an it works fine. (if you want to test
> I have created two repos [1] in git-hub for testing purpose)
> The only limitation is the support of project with modules (CONTINUUM-1843).
> By the way, I'd like to fix CONTINUUM-1831 which IMHO is blocker for a release.

Where are we on all this?

I really want to get a release out this month, even if it means
branching prior to the changes that introduced snapshots and doing it
as a milestone or something.  I'm sure there will be build issues to
work through, there always are. :)  It's just been far too long
already-- I talked about this stuff back in May at a local conference,
and Christian just presented at Agile 2008.

-- 
Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>]

Upgrading to maven-scm 1.1 will fix other issues (CONTINUUM-1521
currently some users can't use continuum if they use StarTeam !).

IMHO we don't have here a high pressure to release something ASAP this
can wait end of august.

--
Olivier

2008/8/11 Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> I don't want to be in a situation where we can't release because we
> depend on snapshots of other things.  Git support would be nice, but
> IMO it isn't vital for 1.2 -- it can go in 1.2.1 or 1.2.2, whenever
> the scm release happens.  Can it go on a branch for now?
>
> There's probably a reasonable workaround for the Appearance thing
> (edit the xml file directly?) but I imagine you'll have it fixed soon
> enough.
>
> There is plenty of other work on trunk that is finished and ready to
> go.  I'm looking at staging 1.2 in the next week or two unless someone
> else would like to do the honors.
>
> --
> Wendy
>
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Yes we can.
>> But we are dependant on scm release (which is dependant on maven
>> parent pom release too :-) ).
>> FYI, I have tested git provider an it works fine. (if you want to test
>> I have created two repos [1] in git-hub for testing purpose)
>> The only limitation is the support of project with modules (CONTINUUM-1843).
>> By the way, I'd like to fix CONTINUUM-1831 which IMHO is blocker for a release.
>>
>> --
>> Olivier
>> [1] http://github.com/olamy/scm-git-test-one-module.git/ and
>> http://github.com/olamy/scm-git-test.git/
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

I don't want to be in a situation where we can't release because we
depend on snapshots of other things.  Git support would be nice, but
IMO it isn't vital for 1.2 -- it can go in 1.2.1 or 1.2.2, whenever
the scm release happens.  Can it go on a branch for now?

There's probably a reasonable workaround for the Appearance thing
(edit the xml file directly?) but I imagine you'll have it fixed soon
enough.

There is plenty of other work on trunk that is finished and ready to
go.  I'm looking at staging 1.2 in the next week or two unless someone
else would like to do the honors.

-- 
Wendy

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> Yes we can.
> But we are dependant on scm release (which is dependant on maven
> parent pom release too :-) ).
> FYI, I have tested git provider an it works fine. (if you want to test
> I have created two repos [1] in git-hub for testing purpose)
> The only limitation is the support of project with modules (CONTINUUM-1843).
> By the way, I'd like to fix CONTINUUM-1831 which IMHO is blocker for a release.
>
> --
> Olivier
> [1] http://github.com/olamy/scm-git-test-one-module.git/ and
> http://github.com/olamy/scm-git-test.git/

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>]

Hi,
Yes we can.
But we are dependant on scm release (which is dependant on maven
parent pom release too :-) ).
FYI, I have tested git provider an it works fine. (if you want to test
I have created two repos [1] in git-hub for testing purpose)
The only limitation is the support of project with modules (CONTINUUM-1843).
By the way, I'd like to fix CONTINUUM-1831 which IMHO is blocker for a release.

--
Olivier
[1] http://github.com/olamy/scm-git-test-one-module.git/ and
http://github.com/olamy/scm-git-test.git/

2008/8/10 Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> There are over 100 issues marked fixed for Continuum 1.2, with 30+
> still outstanding.
>
> I'd like to release 1.2 soon, and slot the remaining issues into
> 1.2.1, 1.2.2, etc.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Wendy
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Emmanuel Venisse <em...@gmail.com>]

It's ok for me.
Emmanuel

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> As now redback is in central repo, I will start the release process.
> (yeah ! :-) )
> As I'm not english native and not a marketing messages specialist,
> I'd like a review of the release notes, a draft is available here [1].
> The source is in svn [2].
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Olivier
>
> [1]
> http://people.apache.org/~olamy/staging-sites/continuum-1.2/docs/1.2/release-notes.html
> [2]
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-docs/src/site/xdoc/release-notes.xml
>
> 2008/9/4 Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> > ... or not.  I'm going to delete the branch.  -Wendy
> >
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>]

Hi,
As now redback is in central repo, I will start the release process.
(yeah ! :-) )
As I'm not english native and not a marketing messages specialist,
I'd like a review of the release notes, a draft is available here [1].
The source is in svn [2].

Thanks,
--
Olivier

[1] http://people.apache.org/~olamy/staging-sites/continuum-1.2/docs/1.2/release-notes.html
[2] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/trunk/continuum-docs/src/site/xdoc/release-notes.xml

2008/9/4 Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> ... or not.  I'm going to delete the branch.  -Wendy
>

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

... or not.  I'm going to delete the branch.  -Wendy

Re: Continuum 1.2 this month?

[Christian Edward Gruber <cg...@israfil.net>]

Please do.  I demoed it at Agile2008, and the additional features  
(which I only breezed past) do seem really valuable, to me at any  
rate.  It certainly seemed fairly stable (though I haven't read  
through the outstanding issues to know if they're "in the way").   
Anyway, just my (non-binding) opinion. ;)

Christian.

On 10-Aug-08, at 11:00 , Wendy Smoak wrote:

> There are over 100 issues marked fixed for Continuum 1.2, with 30+
> still outstanding.
>
> I'd like to release 1.2 soon, and slot the remaining issues into
> 1.2.1, 1.2.2, etc.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- 
> Wendy
>