Am 2017-01-27 um 00:27 schrieb Claude Brisson:
On 26/01/2017 19:45, Michael Osipov wrote:
Am 2017-01-26 um 18:37 schrieb Claude Brisson:
Now my question is: do you or someone else think that the OSGi missing
meta-informations are a show stopper for the 2.0? Otherwise, my plan
is to open JIRA issues for all those remarks, try to release the RC6,
and handle the issues in 2.0.1 or 2.1. The OSGi thing is the only one
I'm not really sure about, since I'm not using any tool relying on
OSGi myself (or maybe I'm the Monsieur Jourdain of the OSGi).
Velocity 2.0 took so much time, one month more or less doesn't really
make a difference now.
It does. It's becoming harder and harder for me to find time working on
it. Your and others help as a reviewer is very helpful, but it does
still take several hours each time, and there will *always* be an extra
space to fix somewhere. I am not against seeking a certain form of
perfection in the code, but the process doesn't have to be coerced in a
single release.
I know it consumes a lot of time. So does my work for Maven. I wouldn't
mind to commit myself and we'd do CTR (commit then review) to relieve
you from the massive work.
And once the engine is released, I still have to take care of the Tools.
And then of several other tools and filters for the next release of the
Tools.
I do not mind to review here too.
That's why I would like to see some rhythm. And releasing can attract
more people. And who said "release often release early"? Or, in the same
vein, "when the product is almost ready, kill the engineer"? Well, I'm
an engineer, but I do understand the motivation.
But there will at least be an RC7. So, I'll try to do something about
this OSGi missing informations.
Of course, if we find any other serious bug, the question is not anymore
pertinent. And I think I found a problem that sits here since some
time...
What is the problem?
Velocity "truthiness": https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VELOCITY-692
It should definitely be part of 2.0. I missed it because the issue was
closed, we should have opened a 2.0 one to remember it.
Thats's the problem if a closed/resolved issue does not have an
assignee. You never know who handled it without reading the entire
thread. A ticket should always have an assignee if code has been changed.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@velocity.apache.org
