You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> on 2004/06/02 01:52:51 UTC
Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
If everything else is resolved, I don't think we need to wait on Validator 1.1.4. If it's ready when we are, fine. If not, #18169 does not seem like a "showstopper" issue to me, and we can finish implementing the feature in the 1.3.x series.
I'm trying to resolve the issues not listed as "outstanding" on the release plan, which should put us in a position to roll 1.2.6.
I would be in favor of immediately branching at 1.2.6, regardless, so we can start on 1.3.x. If there are any straggling issues with the 1.2.x build, I'd be happy to cross-commit between the 1.2.x and 1.3.x branches. We've let 1.2.x block 1.3.x long enough, and it's time to "move on to bigger and better things".
We did tag and roll 1.2.5, it just didn't go anyplace, which is going to happen now and again.
-Ted.
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:21:30 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
>>�Seams that Chain is only for Struts 1.2 ?
>>�or 1.3, which is based on Servlet2.2
>>
>�I believe that we reached consensus that it would be ok to move
>�Struts 1.3 to depend on Servlet 2.3. �Work on Struts 1.3 is blocked
>�on the release of a GA 1.2.x Struts so as to minimize any need to
>�apply patches across both branches.
>
>�Looking at http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease126, is it
>�true that we are just waiting for commons-validator 1.1.4 to be
>�marked "GA"? �The other bugs all seem to be marked for 1.3 except
>�one which is underspecified.
>
>�Should we somehow annotate this page:
>�http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease125 to indicate that
>�there isn't going to be a 1.2.5 release? �Or should we have a vote
>�on it even though 1.2.6 is brewing?
>
>�Joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
Posted by Vic <vi...@friendvu.com>.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
to include this in the last 1.2 release.
>
It does not have to be last 1.2, still could have 1.27 :-).
(and maybeeeeeee 1.3 should be called 1.4, just in case, it is a big
change).
.V
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
Posted by Martin Cooper <mf...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:03:48 -0500, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:56:02 -0800, Martin Cooper wrote:
> > Excellent! I will roll it today.
>
> The one thing might be a quick update of the release notes to catch us up. It should only be a couple of items. (I'd do it myself, but I'm juggling other responsibilities today.)
>
Yep, I just finished doing that, and will check in shortly.
--
Martin Cooper
> > BTW, I saw that you checked in a fix for #31642, but it still shows
> > as open in Bugzilla.
>
> Thanks, done.
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:56:02 -0800, Martin Cooper wrote:
>�Excellent! I will roll it today.
The one thing might be a quick update of the release notes to catch us up. It should only be a couple of items. (I'd do it myself, but I'm juggling other responsibilities today.)
>�BTW, I saw that you checked in a fix for #31642, but it still shows
>�as open in Bugzilla.
Thanks, done.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
Posted by Martin Cooper <mf...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:46:10 -0500, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> I just realized my clock was off yesterday, so my posts might appear out of order. (Forward into the past!) Sorry for the inconvenience.
>
> Anyway, it looks to me like 1.2.6 is ready to roll, if someone wants to do the deed.
>
Excellent! I will roll it today.
BTW, I saw that you checked in a fix for #31642, but it still shows as
open in Bugzilla.
--
Martin Cooper
> -Ted.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:14:12 -0400, Ted Husted wrote:
> > As mentioned, we can always tag and roll additional releases from
> > the 1.2.x branch. It's just a question of how much we want to
> > cross-commit between 1.3.x and 1.2.x.
> >
> > Right now, I'd say cross-committing this patch is the lesser of the
> > two evils.
> >
> > When validator 1.1.4 goes GA, I'd personally commit to rolling
> > 1.2.7, especially if we also get a patch for #23127 too.
> >
> > -Ted.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:54:35 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >
> >> The issue is that Validator was missed out when message bundles
> >> was implemented in Struts - I'd prefer we wait for Validator
> >> 1.1.4 and fix #18169 and #21760 and that hole will then be
> >> plugged in the 1.2.x series.
> >>
> >> If we were carrying on in the 1.2.x series, then releasing 1.2.6
> >> and leaving them till next time would be fine by me - but since
> >> we're moving on to a 1.3 branch IMO it would be a good idea to
> >> include this in the last 1.2 release.
> >>
> >> Theres been no -ve feedback from anyone on Validator 1.1.4 so
> >> hopefully it will be voted GA in the next couple of days - can we
> >> really not delay a week for the 1.2.6 version and include this
> >> stuff?
> >>
> >> Niall
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Ted Husted" <hu...@apache.org>
> >> To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org> Sent:
> >> Tuesday, June 01, 2004 11:52 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
> >>
> >>
> >> If everything else is resolved, I don't think we need to wait on
> >> Validator 1.1.4. If it's ready when we are, fine. If not, #18169
> >> does not seem like a "showstopper" issue to me, and we can finish
> >> implementing the feature in the 1.3.x series.
> >>
> >> I'm trying to resolve the issues not listed as "outstanding" on
> >> the release plan, which should put us in a position to roll
> >> 1.2.6.
> >>
> >> I would be in favor of immediately branching at 1.2.6,
> >> regardless, so we can start on 1.3.x. If there are any
> >> straggling issues with the 1.2.x build, I'd be happy to cross-
> >> commit between the 1.2.x and 1.3.x branches. We've let 1.2.x
> >> block 1.3.x long enough, and it's time to "move on to bigger and
> >> better things".
> >>
> >> We did tag and roll 1.2.5, it just didn't go anyplace, which is
> >> going to happen now and again.
> >>
> >> -Ted.
> >>
> >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:21:30 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Seams that Chain is only for Struts 1.2 ?
> >>>> or 1.3, which is based on Servlet2.2
> >>>>
> >>> I believe that we reached consensus that it would be ok to move
> >>> Struts 1.3 to depend on Servlet 2.3. Work on Struts 1.3 is
> >>> blocked on the release of a GA 1.2.x Struts so as to minimize
> >>> any need to apply patches across both branches.
> >>>
> >>> Looking at http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease126, is
> >>> it true that we are just waiting for commons-validator 1.1.4
> >>> to be marked "GA"? The other bugs all seem to be marked for
> >>> 1.3 except one which is underspecified.
> >>>
> >>> Should we somehow annotate this page:
> >>> http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease125 to indicate that
> >>> there isn't going to be a 1.2.5 release? Or should we have a
> >>> vote on it even though 1.2.6 is brewing?
> >>>
> >>> Joe
> >>>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org For
> > additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
I just realized my clock was off yesterday, so my posts might appear out of order. (Forward into the past!) Sorry for the inconvenience.
Anyway, it looks to me like 1.2.6 is ready to roll, if someone wants to do the deed.
-Ted.
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:14:12 -0400, Ted Husted wrote:
> As mentioned, we can always tag and roll additional releases from
> the 1.2.x branch. It's just a question of how much we want to
> cross-commit between 1.3.x and 1.2.x.
>
> Right now, I'd say cross-committing this patch is the lesser of the
> two evils.
>
> When validator 1.1.4 goes GA, I'd personally commit to rolling
> 1.2.7, especially if we also get a patch for #23127 too.
>
> -Ted.
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:54:35 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>> The issue is that Validator was missed out when message bundles
>> was implemented in Struts - I'd prefer we wait for Validator
>> 1.1.4 and fix #18169 and #21760 and that hole will then be
>> plugged in the 1.2.x series.
>>
>> If we were carrying on in the 1.2.x series, then releasing 1.2.6
>> and leaving them till next time would be fine by me - but since
>> we're moving on to a 1.3 branch IMO it would be a good idea to
>> include this in the last 1.2 release.
>>
>> Theres been no -ve feedback from anyone on Validator 1.1.4 so
>> hopefully it will be voted GA in the next couple of days - can we
>> really not delay a week for the 1.2.6 version and include this
>> stuff?
>>
>> Niall
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ted Husted" <hu...@apache.org>
>> To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org> Sent:
>> Tuesday, June 01, 2004 11:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
>>
>>
>> If everything else is resolved, I don't think we need to wait on
>> Validator 1.1.4. If it's ready when we are, fine. If not, #18169
>> does not seem like a "showstopper" issue to me, and we can finish
>> implementing the feature in the 1.3.x series.
>>
>> I'm trying to resolve the issues not listed as "outstanding" on
>> the release plan, which should put us in a position to roll
>> 1.2.6.
>>
>> I would be in favor of immediately branching at 1.2.6,
>> regardless, so we can start on 1.3.x. If there are any
>> straggling issues with the 1.2.x build, I'd be happy to cross-
>> commit between the 1.2.x and 1.3.x branches. We've let 1.2.x
>> block 1.3.x long enough, and it's time to "move on to bigger and
>> better things".
>>
>> We did tag and roll 1.2.5, it just didn't go anyplace, which is
>> going to happen now and again.
>>
>> -Ted.
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:21:30 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
>>
>>>> Seams that Chain is only for Struts 1.2 ?
>>>> or 1.3, which is based on Servlet2.2
>>>>
>>> I believe that we reached consensus that it would be ok to move
>>> Struts 1.3 to depend on Servlet 2.3. Work on Struts 1.3 is
>>> blocked on the release of a GA 1.2.x Struts so as to minimize
>>> any need to apply patches across both branches.
>>>
>>> Looking at http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease126, is
>>> it true that we are just waiting for commons-validator 1.1.4
>>> to be marked "GA"? The other bugs all seem to be marked for
>>> 1.3 except one which is underspecified.
>>>
>>> Should we somehow annotate this page:
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease125 to indicate that
>>> there isn't going to be a 1.2.5 release? Or should we have a
>>> vote on it even though 1.2.6 is brewing?
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
As mentioned, we can always tag and roll additional releases from the 1.2.x branch. It's just a question of how much we want to cross-commit between 1.3.x and 1.2.x.
Right now, I'd say cross-committing this patch is the lesser of the two evils.
When validator 1.1.4 goes GA, I'd personally commit to rolling 1.2.7, especially if we also get a patch for #23127 too.
-Ted.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:54:35 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> The issue is that Validator was missed out when message bundles was
> implemented in Struts - I'd prefer we wait for Validator 1.1.4 and
> fix #18169 and #21760 and that hole will then be plugged in the
> 1.2.x series.
>
> If we were carrying on in the 1.2.x series, then releasing 1.2.6
> and leaving them till next time would be fine by me - but since
> we're moving on to a 1.3 branch IMO it would be a good idea to
> include this in the last 1.2 release.
>
> Theres been no -ve feedback from anyone on Validator 1.1.4 so
> hopefully it will be voted GA in the next couple of days - can we
> really not delay a week for the 1.2.6 version and include this
> stuff?
>
> Niall
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Husted" <hu...@apache.org>
> To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
>
>
> If everything else is resolved, I don't think we need to wait on
> Validator 1.1.4. If it's ready when we are, fine. If not, #18169
> does not seem like a "showstopper" issue to me, and we can finish
> implementing the feature in the 1.3.x series.
>
> I'm trying to resolve the issues not listed as "outstanding" on the
> release plan, which should put us in a position to roll 1.2.6.
>
> I would be in favor of immediately branching at 1.2.6, regardless,
> so we can start on 1.3.x. If there are any straggling issues with
> the 1.2.x build, I'd be happy to cross-commit between the 1.2.x and
> 1.3.x branches. We've let 1.2.x block 1.3.x long enough, and it's
> time to "move on to bigger and better things".
>
> We did tag and roll 1.2.5, it just didn't go anyplace, which is
> going to happen now and again.
>
> -Ted.
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:21:30 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
>>> Seams that Chain is only for Struts 1.2 ?
>>> or 1.3, which is based on Servlet2.2
>>>
>> I believe that we reached consensus that it would be ok to move
>> Struts 1.3 to depend on Servlet 2.3. Work on Struts 1.3 is
>> blocked on the release of a GA 1.2.x Struts so as to minimize any
>> need to apply patches across both branches.
>>
>> Looking at http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease126, is it
>> true that we are just waiting for commons-validator 1.1.4 to be
>> marked "GA"? The other bugs all seem to be marked for 1.3 except
>> one which is underspecified.
>>
>> Should we somehow annotate this page:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease125 to indicate that
>> there isn't going to be a 1.2.5 release? Or should we have a vote
>> on it even though 1.2.6 is brewing?
>>
>> Joe
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
The issue is that Validator was missed out when message bundles was
implemented in Struts - I'd prefer we wait for Validator 1.1.4 and fix
#18169 and #21760 and that hole will then be plugged in the 1.2.x series.
If we were carrying on in the 1.2.x series, then releasing 1.2.6 and leaving
them till next time would be fine by me - but since we're moving on to a 1.3
branch IMO it would be a good idea to include this in the last 1.2 release.
Theres been no -ve feedback from anyone on Validator 1.1.4 so hopefully it
will be voted GA in the next couple of days - can we really not delay a week
for the 1.2.6 version and include this stuff?
Niall
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Husted" <hu...@apache.org>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
If everything else is resolved, I don't think we need to wait on Validator
1.1.4. If it's ready when we are, fine. If not, #18169 does not seem like a
"showstopper" issue to me, and we can finish implementing the feature in the
1.3.x series.
I'm trying to resolve the issues not listed as "outstanding" on the release
plan, which should put us in a position to roll 1.2.6.
I would be in favor of immediately branching at 1.2.6, regardless, so we can
start on 1.3.x. If there are any straggling issues with the 1.2.x build, I'd
be happy to cross-commit between the 1.2.x and 1.3.x branches. We've let
1.2.x block 1.3.x long enough, and it's time to "move on to bigger and
better things".
We did tag and roll 1.2.5, it just didn't go anyplace, which is going to
happen now and again.
-Ted.
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:21:30 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
>> Seams that Chain is only for Struts 1.2 ?
>> or 1.3, which is based on Servlet2.2
>>
> I believe that we reached consensus that it would be ok to move
> Struts 1.3 to depend on Servlet 2.3. Work on Struts 1.3 is blocked
> on the release of a GA 1.2.x Struts so as to minimize any need to
> apply patches across both branches.
>
> Looking at http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease126, is it
> true that we are just waiting for commons-validator 1.1.4 to be
> marked "GA"? The other bugs all seem to be marked for 1.3 except
> one which is underspecified.
>
> Should we somehow annotate this page:
> http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease125 to indicate that
> there isn't going to be a 1.2.5 release? Or should we have a vote
> on it even though 1.2.6 is brewing?
>
> Joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
+1 and I'll assist in knocking the remaining bugs down or anything else
necessary.
Don
> If everything else is resolved, I don't think we need to wait on Validator
> 1.1.4. If it's ready when we are, fine. If not, #18169 does not seem like
> a "showstopper" issue to me, and we can finish implementing the feature in
> the 1.3.x series.
>
> I'm trying to resolve the issues not listed as "outstanding" on the
> release plan, which should put us in a position to roll 1.2.6.
>
> I would be in favor of immediately branching at 1.2.6, regardless, so we
> can start on 1.3.x. If there are any straggling issues with the 1.2.x
> build, I'd be happy to cross-commit between the 1.2.x and 1.3.x branches.
> We've let 1.2.x block 1.3.x long enough, and it's time to "move on to
> bigger and better things".
>
> We did tag and roll 1.2.5, it just didn't go anyplace, which is going to
> happen now and again.
>
> -Ted.
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:21:30 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
>>> Seams that Chain is only for Struts 1.2 ?
>>> or 1.3, which is based on Servlet2.2
>>>
>> I believe that we reached consensus that it would be ok to move
>> Struts 1.3 to depend on Servlet 2.3. Work on Struts 1.3 is blocked
>> on the release of a GA 1.2.x Struts so as to minimize any need to
>> apply patches across both branches.
>>
>> Looking at http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease126, is it
>> true that we are just waiting for commons-validator 1.1.4 to be
>> marked "GA"? The other bugs all seem to be marked for 1.3 except
>> one which is underspecified.
>>
>> Should we somehow annotate this page:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease125 to indicate that
>> there isn't going to be a 1.2.5 release? Or should we have a vote
>> on it even though 1.2.6 is brewing?
>>
>> Joe
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:52:51 -0400, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> [snip]
> I would be in favor of immediately branching at 1.2.6, regardless, so we can start on 1.3.x. If there are any straggling issues with the 1.2.x build, I'd be happy to cross-commit between the 1.2.x and 1.3.x branches. We've let 1.2.x block 1.3.x long enough, and it's time to "move on to bigger and better things".
>
+1
>
> -Ted.
>
Craig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
At first, we were listing the ones that were going to held over to 1.3.x and leaving out the JavaServer Faces ones (that don't apply to the core).
I just finished adding the others, so that the tallies match (13 each as of now). There are four remaining that I'll try to resolve in the morning, which have my userid in the status column.
-Ted.
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:24:01 -0800, Martin Cooper wrote:
>�I have to admit I'm a bit puzzled about what's on the wiki page
>�versus what comes up when I run my standard query against Bugzilla.
>�There are six bugs listed on the wiki page, but there appear to be
>�15 open issues in Bugzilla. Here's the list of bug numbers that
>�show up in Bugzilla but are not listed on the wiki page:
>
>�23127 - Page attribute of img and image tags doesn't use
>�pagePattern setting 31642 - <bean:include>�always include Session
>�id (if any) even for external Urls (href attribute)
>�32014 - HttpServletRequestWrapper in struts-faces broken for
>�servlet 2.4 32165 - FacesRequestProcessor bug when using prefix
>�mapped Struts servlet &�extension mapped Faces servlet 32265 - add
>�a warning to reset FormFile
>�32283 - Two slashes created by TagUtils.getActionMappingURL for
>�webapps in root context 32294 - html:text tag is not closed properly
>�32309 - Nonsense error messages from html:select/ options tags.
>�32310 - html:select/ options tags undocumented
>
>�Of these, 32014 and 32165 are struts-faces bugs, which I assume
>�we're not worrying about for 1.2.6. Should I simply be adding the
>�remainder to the wiki page, so that we're tracking them all there,
>�or is there a reason that they (at least the ones created before
>�today ;) are not already there?
>
>>�I would be in favor of immediately branching at 1.2.6,
>>�regardless, so we can start on 1.3.x. If there are any straggling
>>�issues with the 1.2.x build, I'd be happy to cross-commit between
>>�the 1.2.x and 1.3.x branches. We've let 1.2.x block 1.3.x long
>>�enough, and it's time to "move on to bigger and better things".
>>
>
>�+1 to branching at 1.2.6. Assuming there are no objections, I'll
>�create a 1.2.x branch at the same time as I do the 1.2.6 label.
>
>�--
>�Martin Cooper
>
>
>>�We did tag and roll 1.2.5, it just didn't go anyplace, which is
>>�going to happen now and again.
>>
>>�-Ted.
>>
>>
>>�On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:21:30 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
>>
>>>>�Seams that Chain is only for Struts 1.2 ?
>>>>�or 1.3, which is based on Servlet2.2
>>>>
>>>�I believe that we reached consensus that it would be ok to move
>>>�Struts 1.3 to depend on Servlet 2.3. �Work on Struts 1.3 is
>>>�blocked on the release of a GA 1.2.x Struts so as to minimize
>>>�any need to apply patches across both branches.
>>>
>>>�Looking at http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease126, is
>>>�it true that we are just waiting for commons-validator 1.1.4 to
>>>�be marked "GA"? �The other bugs all seem to be marked for 1.3
>>>�except one which is underspecified.
>>>
>>>�Should we somehow annotate this page:
>>>�http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease125 to indicate that
>>>�there isn't going to be a 1.2.5 release? �Or should we have a
>>>�vote on it even though 1.2.6 is brewing?
>>>
>>>�Joe
>>>
>>�------------------------------------------------------------------
>>�--- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org For
>>�additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>
>�--------------------------------------------------------------------
>�- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org For
>�additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain)
Posted by Martin Cooper <mf...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:52:51 -0400, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> If everything else is resolved, I don't think we need to wait on Validator 1.1.4. If it's ready when we are, fine. If not, #18169 does not seem like a "showstopper" issue to me, and we can finish implementing the feature in the 1.3.x series.
>
> I'm trying to resolve the issues not listed as "outstanding" on the release plan, which should put us in a position to roll 1.2.6.
>
I have to admit I'm a bit puzzled about what's on the wiki page versus
what comes up when I run my standard query against Bugzilla. There are
six bugs listed on the wiki page, but there appear to be 15 open
issues in Bugzilla. Here's the list of bug numbers that show up in
Bugzilla but are not listed on the wiki page:
23127 - Page attribute of img and image tags doesn't use pagePattern setting
31642 - <bean:include> always include Session id (if any) even for
external Urls (href attribute)
32014 - HttpServletRequestWrapper in struts-faces broken for servlet 2.4
32165 - FacesRequestProcessor bug when using prefix mapped Struts
servlet & extension mapped Faces servlet
32265 - add a warning to reset FormFile
32283 - Two slashes created by TagUtils.getActionMappingURL for
webapps in root context
32294 - html:text tag is not closed properly
32309 - Nonsense error messages from html:select/ options tags.
32310 - html:select/ options tags undocumented
Of these, 32014 and 32165 are struts-faces bugs, which I assume we're
not worrying about for 1.2.6. Should I simply be adding the remainder
to the wiki page, so that we're tracking them all there, or is there a
reason that they (at least the ones created before today ;) are not
already there?
> I would be in favor of immediately branching at 1.2.6, regardless, so we can start on 1.3.x. If there are any straggling issues with the 1.2.x build, I'd be happy to cross-commit between the 1.2.x and 1.3.x branches. We've let 1.2.x block 1.3.x long enough, and it's time to "move on to bigger and better things".
>
+1 to branching at 1.2.6. Assuming there are no objections, I'll
create a 1.2.x branch at the same time as I do the 1.2.6 label.
--
Martin Cooper
> We did tag and roll 1.2.5, it just didn't go anyplace, which is going to happen now and again.
>
> -Ted.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:21:30 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote:
> >> Seams that Chain is only for Struts 1.2 ?
> >> or 1.3, which is based on Servlet2.2
> >>
> > I believe that we reached consensus that it would be ok to move
> > Struts 1.3 to depend on Servlet 2.3. Work on Struts 1.3 is blocked
> > on the release of a GA 1.2.x Struts so as to minimize any need to
> > apply patches across both branches.
> >
> > Looking at http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease126, is it
> > true that we are just waiting for commons-validator 1.1.4 to be
> > marked "GA"? The other bugs all seem to be marked for 1.3 except
> > one which is underspecified.
> >
> > Should we somehow annotate this page:
> > http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease125 to indicate that
> > there isn't going to be a 1.2.5 release? Or should we have a vote
> > on it even though 1.2.6 is brewing?
> >
> > Joe
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org