De : "Jacques Le Roux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > De : "David E Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The release4.0 branch needs testing, and that is the point of this > > thread. Of course there are bugs or issues, finding them and the > > nature of them is the point of doing this. You're right that these > > exist and need attention. Whether they should block a binary release > > is another question altogether. > > > > As for the bug you mentioned... that is on my list of suspicious > > things to look into. It may not really be a bug. The XML Jonathon > > presented was not valid and some of what he wrote seemed inconsistent, > > and I don't get the feeling from what Al wrote that he actually tested > > it (I may be wrong on this, I haven't finished looking into it, as I > > mentioned above). > > Ooops, I was maybe to quick when back porting (a so small an isolated change, > but I'm aware with maybe great side effects). To late > tonight, I will test it tomorrow morning 1st hours in rel. 4.0 if nobody > beats me.
Jonathon wrote: In that exact Java method in class HtmlWidget. Look for a push without a matching pop. Very obvious. Just add a pop. I tested the fix, it works. Jonathon Yes obvious... at least as soon as you have understand how all this works, finally did not even test. Jacques > Jacques > > > -David > > > > > > On Nov 26, 2007, at 1:15 PM, BJ Freeman wrote: > > > > > as per the bug found today on > > > Re: HtmlWidget missing a MapStack pop? > > > there are bugs and ver 40 needs a good test. > > > per the commit on this bug > > > Ver 4.0 was not updated. > > > > > > :( > > > > > > > > > Jacopo Cappellato sent the following on 11/26/2007 11:52 AM: > > >> Frankly speaking, my interest for the release branch is low, I've not > > >> tested it too much and I usually suggest to clients to build their > > >> fortune on the trunk. > > >> That said it would be great to release it, if there is consensus from > > >> the community. > > >> > > >> Jacopo > > >> > > >> David E Jones wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> BTW I think the time is coming to answer questions like in > > >>>> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Demo+and+Test+Setup+Guide?focusedCommentId=2604#comment-2604 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> What to you think, you developpers ? > > >>> > > >>> I think first things first... > > >>> > > >>> The first question for the release4.0 branch is: is it ready from a > > >>> code, etc perspective to be released? > > >>> > > >>> I asked a question a few weeks ago to try to determine how many > > >>> people > > >>> are using the release branch and have found it sufficient for even a > > >>> "beta" label (which technically even the trunk SHOULD have, ie no > > >>> one > > >>> should commit anything that isn't at least point tested)? > > >>> > > >>> It only takes a couple of hours to build the release and get it > > >>> uploaded and such. I pretty much have to do that as I'm the one who > > >>> has been signing the releases and such (it is my signature in the > > >>> KEYS > > >>> file, etc). > > >>> > > >>> Before that happens we need to make sure we're ready for a release > > >>> as > > >>> a community, and then the PMC needs to vote on a candidate > > >>> revision in > > >>> the branch for a binary release. > > >>> > > >>> Right now I personally haven't tested it much, and I realistically > > >>> won't be able to, but I am willing to vote for it if there is enough > > >>> community feedback that it is in a good state for release. In fact, > > >>> I'd be ecstatic to see this happen! Each PMC member needs to > > >>> consider > > >>> their own criteria for the binary release being ready, and right now > > >>> this is mine. > > >>> > > >>> So, that gets us back to the first things first thingy mentioned > > >>> above... > > >>> > > >>> Please comment everyone so we can get this moving forward! > > >>> > > >>> I'll leave this on the dev list for now and we can start something > > >>> in > > >>> a bit on the user list if there isn't enough feedback here. > > >>> > > >>> -David > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
