On Aug 1, 2010, at 1:56 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
> 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?
I don't like it too, even if I too don't feel strongly about it. If there is a
general consensus we could return to a more traditional naming convention...
but at this point what I really would like to avoid is a huge brainstorming
thread that will delay forever our releases. If the consensus will be difficult
to reach, I would suggest to keep the conversation going and in the meantime
continue with our current (and new) release strategy.
Kind regards,
Jacopo
>
> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
