--- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David, thanks for the rsponse. > > I'm going to commit the automatic positioning work I've done today (to > the > HEAD, not the VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH). > > Thanks for the pointer to changes.xml - I'll update that today with the > changes I've made. > > Can I cut a release using the "ant release" task or do I have to use > maven - > I know next to nothing about maven :-(
I don't use or maintain the ant build file. Running 'maven clean dist' will give you the source and binary files needed for the release. Running 'maven clean site' will generate the website. David > > Niall > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 8:10 PM > Subject: Re: [Validator] Next Release > > > > > > --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I decided to have a go a resolving a couple of Struts bugs to do > with > > > bundles/resources and validator: > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18169 > > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21760 > > > > > > Currently theres an inconsitency in how Struts handles bundles since > > > although the validator dtd allows users to specify alternative > bundles - > > > Struts completely ignores them. Seems to me this is a big weakness > in > > > how > > > handles Strut's bundles if validator can't take acount of them. > > > > > > Specifically Struts ignores the following validator DTD attributes: > > > * the msg elements 'bundle' attribute > > > * the msg elements 'resource' attribute > > > * the arg elements 'bundle' attribute > > > > > > Fixing Struts required a couple of small changes to Commons > Validator, > > > which > > > I've just done - it was already subject to the following outstanding > > > bugzilla request: > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29452 > > > > > > In order to now fix Struts there needs to be a release of Commons > > > Validator > > > with this change in and I'm wondering about the following: > > > > > > 1) Version 1.1.4 or Version 1.2.0 > > > ======================== > > > I wan't sure what the difference between the whats in the HEAD > (Version > > > 1.2.0) and the VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH (Version 1.1.3) - but from a > quick > > > scan a summary of the differences is: > > > > > > * Form Inheritance functionality (new extends attribute) > > > * Loads of deprecations removed (including arg0 to arg3) > > > * A number of minor bug fixes > > > > Those are the only differences I can remember. > > > > > > > > I guess it would be good to have only one branch and release Version > > > 1.2.0 > > > but I'm wondering whether the Form Inheritance is fully tested and > > > working > > > and also, given all the deprecations removed, whether it might be > better > > > (upgrade wise for the users) to release Version 1.1.4 from the > > > VALIDATOR_1_1_2_BRANCH. > > > > I doubt form inheritance has been tested completely since it hasn't > been > > included in a release yet. > > > > The branch name should have been VALIDATOR_1_1_BRANCH so that it could > > logically support multiple 1.1.x releases. However, it's not named > that > > so I guess we'll just have to release 1.1.4 from that branch and deal > with > > the minor confusion. I'd like to limit the number of releases in the > 1.1 > > series and move on to 1.2 so we can get rid of the gross arg0-4 stuff > for > > good. > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Arg's Position Parameter - Bug 31194 > > > ============================== > > > While doing this stuff on validator I came across the following > > > enhancement > > > request: > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31194 > > > > > > It looked like a good idea and I've attached a patch for review > which > > > implements this request. Personally, if the decision is to go with a > > > Version > > > 1.2.0 release - I wouldn't want to upgrade to 1.2.0 without this > > > enhancement > > > being applied - when replacing arg0 - arg3 I could get away with not > > > having > > > to add a position attribute if this enhacement was done. > > > > I agree that automatic positioning should be included in 1.2.0. > > > > > > > > The easiest route - Struts wise is to go the Version 1.1.4 route. It > > > would > > > mean zero impact on the users, except having to drop the new jar in. > > > Validator wise, we should probably get the Version 1.2.0 out of the > door > > > and > > > just support one version. > > > > > > I'd rather go the 1.1.4 route but I'd appreciate hearing what others > > > think. > > > > I think releasing a 1.1.4 is a good idea. This will give users yet > > another opportunity to notice the arg0-4 deprecation and change their > xml > > accordingly. That will make for a smooth upgrade to 1.2.0 when it's > > finally released. > > > > If you cut a release, please update the changes.xml file because we're > > using that as our release notes. I usually update this file at the > same > > time as making a code change or fixing a bug. > > > > Thanks so much for volunteering on validator Niall! > > > > David > > > > > > > > Niall > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
