I wonder if before we do a formal release we shouldn't perhaps take another
look at our release naming convention of {year}.{month}?Do people find it useful? Does it cause any confusion? To be honest I don't really like it and would prefer to just have OFBiz 10, OFBiz 11, etc. I don't feel strongly about it but thought it might be worth raising before we continue. Regards Scott On 27/07/2010, at 6:55 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > Let me know when you want me to start the process and I will initiate it (by > creating a tag, preparing the signed package in my home folder, initiating a > vote for the release). > > Kind regards, > > Jacopo > > On Jul 27, 2010, at 7:55 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote: > >> Thanks Adrian. >> >> Cheers, >> Ruppert >> >> On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:27 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> Cool. Thanks Scott and Adam! All of the backports I had in mind have been >>> committed. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Adam Heath <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> From: Adam Heath <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: Create Release from 10.04 release branch >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 9:46 PM >>>> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> I still need to backport some fixes to the branch. >>>>> >>>>> I would like to remove the conversion framework from >>>> the entity engine - for the same reason I did it in the >>>> trunk. I would just remove the conversion code in the branch >>>> and I would not include the new JdbcValueHandler code. >>>>> >>>>> Plus, I would like to add the expanded entity engine >>>> tests - if there are no objections. I know that isn't a bug >>>> fix, but it could help users of the release find >>>> compatibility problems with various databases. >>>> >>>> Adding any new test cases that themselves don't add any new >>>> code would >>>> be perfectly fine. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
