I think that the most importat thing is to establish what goals we have with
M1.
The problems we all are having might be bugs but it can also be changes in
configuration that need to be made. So IMHO the goal of M1 should be that an
2.3.3 application is working properly with M1 if the user follows the
migration guide.
I began on a migration guide and committed it to the T4 site, but i can move
it into the wiki as was requested.
I'll also be putting the bugs I find into JIRA.
/Ludwig
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
From: Will Glass-Husain
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:21 AM
To: Turbine Developers List
Cc: Turbine Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release turbine-4.0-M1 based on RC3
No big deal. Just do it again.
Will
On Jun 21, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Thomas Vandahl <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20.06.11 01:35, Will Glass-Husain wrote:
Ah-ha! No, it doesn't. The folder "assembly" is missing from the source
package. (zip).
Doh. How should we proceed? Build a new source package or restart the
vote with RC4?
That makes me puzzled that anyone voted +1. Do other voters not actually
build the source? I've always assumed checking the build was a key part
of
approving a release. It's useful too when voting to say how you built it
(e.g. Maven version, JDK version, OS) as it helps the release manager
know
what environments it's been tested in.
Well, I obviously built from the SVN tag (MacOS X, JDK 1.6, Maven
2.2.1). While I tried hard not to oversee something, this one slipped
through.
Bye, Thomas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
