Yes, please cherry-pick the change to the 1.6.x branch and it will be included in the next release of that branch.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 13:04, Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> wrote: > Guillaume, > > Sorry for taking so long to reply - I've been on a skiing vacation in > Norway and I'm just getting my nose above the water after having returned > to work. > > It seems I must have done something wrong when I checked in my stuff then. > Like I've been writing in another mail conversation on this list I seem to > have done just about everything wrong so far. > > Anyway, I was under the impression that even if the commit log looks a bit > awkward (with unnecessary merging and with the user "unknown") the commit > actually was performed. > > Did I commit to the wrong branch? If you look at commit > 7bb9a17e1f036148db97dd9c3d9308c40ea34e21 done on February 6, it should > include my two java files in the new package org.apache.log4j.filter in the > artifact pax-logging-service. > > Now, if I browse the source code at your latest commit ( > f49ff11ad0731e05ed336309b9ff0c493bc84dcb) done on February 27 I can see > my files there. How come they are not part of the release? > > .... > > I think I'll answer my own question...Just noticed that you release from > the branch paxlogging-1.6.x and not from the master branch. I hadn't > realised that. I guess the correct procedure then is to commit changes to > both the master branch and the paxlogging-1.6.x branch - is that correct? > > Should I add my changes to the 1.6.x branch? > > /Bengt > > > > 2012/2/24 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > >> It doesn't seem to be in the branch where this release comes from: >> https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.logging/commits/paxlogging-1.6.x >> >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 16:40, Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I have a feeling that PAXLOGGING-132 is also part of this release. I >> have >> > checked in the code a while back but was uncertain about the procedures >> for >> > changing the status. It is therefore still set to "unresolved". I guess >> I >> > should have done this - sorry about that. >> > >> > Shall I set it to resolved now? >> > >> > /Bengt >> > >> > 2012/2/24 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> The PaxLogging Team is pleased to announce the availability of a new >> >> bug fix release for the OPS4J PaxLogging framework! >> >> >> >> The 1.6.5 release of pax-logging contains a few bug fixes and >> >> dependency upgrades, including an upgrade to slf4j api 1.6.4 >> >> >> >> For the full changelog head your browser to >> >> >> >> >> http://team.ops4j.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10021&version=11388 >> . >> >> >> >> -Enjoy >> >> >> >> The PaxLogging Team >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> general mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > general mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> Guillaume Nodet >> ------------------------ >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> ------------------------ >> FuseSource, Integration everywhere >> http://fusesource.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> general mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >> > > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ FuseSource, Integration everywhere http://fusesource.com
_______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
