Just remember to use -Dskip.sandbox=true. That is still necessary to
skip the sandbox stuff for the examples and source bundles. I'm
offline for the rest of the evening as well.
sean
On 9/23/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Sean,
>
> I will be off line for the next 5 or 6 hrs but will check in before
> bed time.
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
>
> On Sep 23, 2005, at 2:41 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
>
> > Just checked in a revised build.xml. I will take a look at the
> > resulting jar files to make sure they look good but I am counting on
> > the others to help me. The sandbox stuff is defnitely not working but
> > that is not important at the moment. For now we just need to build
> > without the sandbox.
> >
> > I will continue to work on the build so that the sandbox stuff is
> > built properly so we can merge back down to the trunk when we're done
> > with all of this.
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 9/23/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes the bug should only be on the trunk and not in the branch.
> >>
> >> TTFN,
> >>
> >> -bd-
> >>
> >> On Sep 23, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The bug is on the trunk though and Bill created the branch off the
> >>> release. So this is not a show stopper for 1.1.1. I agree that we
> >>> should call it 1.1.1 and Bill is right that we can rename the branch
> >>> to whatever we want later.
> >>>
> >>> I'm working on the revised build.xml now. Hopefully we can put
> >>> up an
> >>> initial RC shortly.
> >>>
> >>> sean
> >>>
> >>> On 9/23/05, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Yes, there's a showstopper regression bug in inputCalendar as well.
> >>>> Still trying to see what revision it broke at, but likely either
> >>>>
> >>>> 289859 -- Martin's revamp on the 17-18th
> >>>> 289189 - Myfaces-569 fix on the 15th
> >>>>
> >>>> Trying to download and build the revisions right before each to
> >>>> determine when since it's beyond my abilities to debug javascript.
> >>>> I'll open a Jira issue once I determine more.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/23/05, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> We have the branch created as 1_1_0 (a copy of the 1_1_0 tag) and
> >>>>>> once done it can become 1_1_1 or 1_1_0_1 whatever we agree to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But someone also mentioned that there is a serious bug
> >>>>> (showstopper?)
> >>>>> in jscookmenu.
> >>>>> Therefore my proposal for doing it from current stuff. Or someone
> >>>>> does
> >>>>> fix this as well in the branch?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>> What is the current problem with jscookmenu, is it a showstopper?
> >>>>> Are there any other (serious) bugs that need immediate fixing?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Manfred
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Agreed that we need to have an RC1 tag (which I'm happy to create
> >>>>>> when the vote happens).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Once we agree to release we will create another tag (1_1_1 or
> >>>>>> 1_1_0_1) and that will become the release tag.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As I said early in this thread I'd prefer 1.1.1 to 1.1.0.1 too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> TTFN,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -bd-
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sep 23, 2005, at 1:40 PM, Manfred Geiler wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>> Sorry if I have missed something important, but for lack of
> >>>>>>> time I
> >>>>>>> only could rush through this thread. Just my 0.02 on this issue:
> >>>>>>> - If I got it right, there is only a problem with the myfacse-
> >>>>>>> all.jar, right?
> >>>>>>> - So, as someone proposed earlier we could give a workaround
> >>>>>>> hint
> >>>>>>> ("use the single libs instead") on the homepage, right?
> >>>>>>> - Therefore no need for too much hurry, IMO
> >>>>>>> - I would prefer doing a normal "1.1.1 RC1" (instead of 1.1.0.1)
> >>>>>>> release cancidate from the current source
> >>>>>>> - I can check against TCK on monday
> >>>>>>> - After that, we should tag with "1.1.1 RC1" and start voting
> >>>>>>> on it
> >>>>>>> - If there are bugs to fix then, we can discuss if it's better
> >>>>>>> to do a
> >>>>>>> branch or change current (depending on changes and/or additions
> >>>>>>> in the
> >>>>>>> meantime)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> WDYT?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Manfred
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2005/9/23, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Sean,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't mind creating the branches in the same way we have
> >>>>>>>> created
> >>>>>>>> the tags.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm glad to create the branches, update the build.xml file run
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> build and put myfaces-all.jar and (tomahawk, api & impl) and
> >>>>>>>> make
> >>>>>>>> sure stuff works there.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'll call it 1_1_0_1.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> TTFN,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -bd-
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sep 23, 2005, at 9:10 AM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think we can move past the tag vs. branch discussion now.
> >>>>>>>>> I've
> >>>>>>>>> conceded a few emails ago that we should do a branch.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have to go offline for a few hours. Can this wait until a
> >>>>>>>>> little
> >>>>>>>>> later this afternoon? I can create a branch for us using the
> >>>>>>>>> tag as
> >>>>>>>>> the starting point.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There is no rush. Rushing is what caused the problem in the
> >>>>>>>>> first
> >>>>>>>>> place. And yes there was a RC even though it wasn't widely
> >>>>>>>>> publicized
> >>>>>>>>> it was part of the VOTE thread and was mentioned on the PMC
> >>>>>>>>> list.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> sean
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 9/23/05, Mathias Brökelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> IMO releasing 1.1.0 was a fast shot.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What I´ve missed where the release candidates which normally
> >>>>>>>>>> come
> >>>>>>>>>> before the final release. We should get back to the normal
> >>>>>>>>>> procedure.
> >>>>>>>>>> RCs give us the feedback we need to create good releases.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Tags are supposed to be fixed and shouldn´t be changed after
> >>>>>>>>>> making
> >>>>>>>>>> one. It would be really confusing if we change the tag 1.1.0
> >>>>>>>>>> now
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> make a new release number like 1.1.0.1 for it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I´ve already suggested to make a release branch from
> >>>>>>>>>> trunk. The
> >>>>>>>>>> initial branch is the first RC. Each RC has it´s own tag
> >>>>>>>>>> (svn copy
> >>>>>>>>>> from the release branch). If someone reports a major bug for
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> RC we
> >>>>>>>>>> have to fix it in current (trunk) and merge the fix into the
> >>>>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>> branch too. This gives us the chance to commit changes into
> >>>>>>>>>> current
> >>>>>>>>>> without affecting the release. A week after the RC we can
> >>>>>>>>>> vote for
> >>>>>>>>>> making a new RC or release the final version if remaining
> >>>>>>>>>> bugs are
> >>>>>>>>>> trivial.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Tagging and branching with svn is a lot of work (Thanks Sean
> >>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>> writing the doc!) But IMO we should automate it. Let us
> >>>>>>>>>> write a
> >>>>>>>>>> batch
> >>>>>>>>>> script or use ant for this stuff.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2005/9/23, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We can certainly create a branch but the idea is that we
> >>>>>>>>>>> eventually
> >>>>>>>>>>> have an official release and that's it. Of course there
> >>>>>>>>>>> will be
> >>>>>>>>>>> minor
> >>>>>>>>>>> bugs and those just get fixed in the next release. If you
> >>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>> something before then you use the nightly. This is kind
> >>>>>>>>>>> of a
> >>>>>>>>>>> weird
> >>>>>>>>>>> exception.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Even with a branch we need tagged releases and creating
> >>>>>>>>>>> either is
> >>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>> exactly trivial because of all of the subprojects. See my
> >>>>>>>>>>> wiki
> >>>>>>>>>>> instructions for an example of what is required
> >>>>>>>>>>> (http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/Building_a_Release).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Its still not clear to me the difference between svn tags
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> branches
> >>>>>>>>>>> because you can (after ignoring warnings) check into a
> >>>>>>>>>>> tagged
> >>>>>>>>>>> version.
> >>>>>>>>>>> So in this case this is what I suggest we do b/c the
> >>>>>>>>>>> error is
> >>>>>>>>>>> such a
> >>>>>>>>>>> significant one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Normally I would say we should change the release number,
> >>>>>>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>> and do
> >>>>>>>>>>> an official release (even if its just a minor change) and
> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe we
> >>>>>>>>>>> should consider that in order to avoid confusion (are you
> >>>>>>>>>>> using
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> new or old 1.1.0?)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> sean
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Mathias
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
