Hi Craig,
Thanks for doing this analysis.
pluto-portal
webapp/WEB-INF/fragments/about/view.jsp (added Java Version and OS to trunk)***
webapp/WEB-INF/fragments/admin/page/TomcatDeploymentHelp.jsp (numerous edits to
trunk)***
Fixed 609245.
pluto-portal-driver
PortalURLParserImpl (three items added to ENCODINGS var in trunk - related to
fixed Jira issue?)***
RelativePortalURLImpl (urlParser var and other changes in trunk - related to
fixed Jira issue?)***
Fixed, see PLUTO-361 and PLUTO-356.
I couldn't easily apply the fix to the 286 merge branch so we need to
revisit that.
pluto-site
In xdoc folder:
download.xml (noted added in trunk)***
index.xml (changed JSR-286 spec location in trunk)***
news.xml (added 1.1.4 news item in trunk)***
In xdoc/v11 folder:
app-servers.xml (major modifications in trunk)***
deploying.xml (minor text changes in trunk)***
getting-started.xml (minor, but significant edits in trunk)***
release-notes.xml (conflicting edits)***
Fixed, 609249.
pluto-taglib
ParamTag (added throws JspException to getName() in trunk)***
Applied PLUTO-394 to the 1.1.x branch. It included changes to
o.a.p.tags.el.ParamTag and o.a.p.tags.ParamTag.
pluto-testsuite
webapp/WEB-INF/classes/logging.properties (removed from 1.1.x)***
Copied from trunk, 609248.
pluto-util
Assembler (member vars set to final and assemble() set as public in 1.1.x)
AssemblerCLI (member vars options and args set as final in 1.1.x)
FileSystemInstaller (imports re-arranged in trunk)
install/jetty/Call (missing from trunk)
install/jetty/Configure (missing from trunk)
install/jetty/Jetty5FileSystemInstaller (imports rearranged and
dep.getPath().indexOf() call in getSharedDir() changed in trunk to use Java 5
String.contains() instead)
install/tomcat/Tomcat5FileSystemInstaller (dep.getPath().indexOf() call in
getSharedDir() changed in trunk to use Java 5 String.contains() instead)
**************************************************************************************************************
-----Elliot Metsger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -----
To: [email protected]
From: Elliot Metsger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 01/04/2008 03:21PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch to trunk
Craig,
I'll take a look at the diff this weekend. A cursory glance shows that
there are actually a few more things in the 1.1.x branch than are in
truck, specifically some container unit tests and a wsrp fix.
The diff is taking a while on my machine... I'll review it and open up
any jiras for code that should be merged up to the 1.1.x branch from trunk.
Elliot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Thanks for this message and all the patches you have recently contributed to
> Pluto. I just did a diff between pluto-1.1.x and trunk, and I found a
number of
> differences. Most if them were minor, but a few of them were not. So I'd
rather
> not get rid of the current trunk code for now since I am not 100% sure
that all
> the trunk code has been properly merged with the 1.1-286-trunk-merge
branch.
> Therefore, I intend to copy the current trunk to a pluto-1.2.0 branch
before I
> move the 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch into the SVN trunk sometime early
next week.
>
> At a later date when we have a stable JSR-286 RI in the SVN trunk, we can
vote
> on getting rid of the pluto-1.2.0 branch. I'd just rather not do it now.
> /Craig
>
>
>
> -----Eric Dalquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -----
>
> To: [email protected]
> From: Eric Dalquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 01/04/2008 10:51AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch to trunk
>
> While I don't have any say in this my view is along the same lines as
> Elliots.
>
> 1.0.x is dead
> 1.1.x is being used and will likely need patch releases for the
> foreseeable future
> 1.2.x is pointless with 2.0 on the horizon and if there are any
changes
> in 1.2.x that aren't in 1.1 or 2.0 they should be merged where
> appropriate and 1.2 should be abandoned
>
> -Eric
>
> Elliot Metsger wrote:
> > Sorry I'm coming in late on this discussion.
> >
> > I'm +1 for promoting the 286-trunk-merge to trunk, and +1 for
bumping
> > all the pom revs to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT thereafter. I haven't followed
the
> > 286 coding much at all but I fully support its promotion. Thank
you
> > to Craig, Torsten and others for making the 286 work happen.
> >
> > The pluto-1.0.2 branch is pretty much dead, and I don't think any
> > development effort has happened on it for over a year. I have no
> > opinion about keeping it or deleting it. SVN makes it easy to get
back.
> >
> > The pluto-1.1.x branch should continue to be maintained for now.
It
> > seems to be very stable, and we are still getting some bug fixes
and
> > enhancements towards 1.1.x from the community. I think that the
> > pluto-1.1.x branch should be the basis for a 1.2.x branch (if we
> > decide to do a 1.2.0 release).
> >
> > The remaining branches (initial, 1.1.0-ADMIN-PORTLET-CRAIG,
> > 1.1-286-COMPATIBILITY) can go away I think.
> >
> > I don't believe that the current trunk (1.2.0) has any features
over
> > the 1.1.x branch - I'll double check Jira and the SVN log to make
> > sure. Effort has been made to keep 1.1.x and 1.2.0 the same.
> >
> > I think we can forgo a 1.2 release and that the 286-trunk-merge
should
> > become trunk. I think the easiest way would be what Ate
suggested and
> > remove trunk and move the 1.1-286-trunk-merge to trunk. If
history
> > has been properly maintained during the 1.1-286-trunk-merge work,
I
> > don't think we will "loose" any history that matters.
> >
> > If we ever want to put forward effort to have a 1.2.x branch
(perhaps
> > putting 1.1.x into maint mode to focus dev effort) we can create
it
> > from the 1.1.x branch; then we won't have any regressions from
1.1.x
> > and we can just add the 1.5 sugar on top. If the 1.5 sugar is
sweet
> > enough, it could be merged back to trunk.
> >
> > If it is decided not to release 1.2.0 from the current trunk, and
> > instead release it based off of another branch at a later time,
we'll
> > need to some cleanup in Jira as well.
> >
> > Elliot
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Ate,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your well-considered comments (see below).
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Ate Douma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -----
> >>
> >> >To: [email protected]
> >> >From: Ate Douma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >Date: 12/19/2007 03:12AM
> >> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch to trunk
> >> >
> >> >I'm +1 in general.
> >> >
> >> >But we also should discuss what to do with the current trunk.
> >> >I haven't closely followed the trunk status, but there might be
> >> >(significant) changes since the 1.4.0 release?
> >> >Although the JSR-286 is supposed to be JSR-168 backwards
compatible,
> >> >we cannot assume every user is going to migrate to Pluto 2.0
> >> >(immediately).
> >> >Thus we have to cater for future maintenance / bug fixes on at
least
> >> >the latest 1.x version too, which effectively means there will
be 2
> >> >active Pluto >versions... (comparable to for instance Tomcat
5.5.x
> >> and Tomcat 6.x
> >> >development).
> >> >
> >> >So I think we might need to release the current trunk (as Pluto
1.1.5
> >> >or 1.2, whatever) *before* the 1.1-JSR-286-trunk-merge branch
becomes
> >> >trunk.
> >>
> >> A few weeks ago, Elliot volunteered to do a Pluto 1.1.5 release and
> >> was preparing that in the 1.1.x branch, which, I believe, is a
clone
> >> of the trunk. Please comment, Elliot.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Once the trunk is released, I suggest deleting it and then simply
> >> >copying the 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch to trunk.
> >> >Note: this way we might cause some annoying svn history
breakage but
> >> >I see no other quick solution, short of merging the
> >> >1.1-JSR-286-trunk-merge back into trunk >which I expect will
not
> >> be a trivial task.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Pluto 1.1 development began in a branch that was eventually moved
> >> into the trunk after 1.0.1 was released (Please comment, David).
> >> Before 1.1 moved into the trunk, a Pluto 1.0.2 branch was
created for
> >> future 1.0.x development. I see the 1.1.x branch functioning in
the
> >> same way: the place for future 1.1 development.
> >> The 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch is a merge with the both the trunk and
> >> the 1.1.-286-COMPATIBILITY branch. I see no need for further
merging.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Regards,
> >> >
> >> >Ate
> >> >
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >> >> The JSR-286 Expert Group's work is being completed in the
> >> next few
> >> >weeks.
> >> >> The JSR-286 RI work lead by Torsten Dettborn should also be
> >> >finished at
> >> >> that time. That work started in the 1.1-286-COMPATIBILITY
branch,
> >> >but it
> >> >> has moved to the 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch with my help. As
its
> >> >name
> >> >> implies, the 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch now has fully
integrated
> >> >trunk code
> >> >> into the JSR-286 code.
> >> >> >> When the final RI work is done, Ate Duoma suggested that
the
> >> code
> >> >be tagged
> >> >> in Subversion (remember a tag is not a release). That point
would
> >> >also be a
> >> >> good time to move the 1.1-286-trunk-merge code into the
trunk. I
> >> >suggest we
> >> >> change the pom version to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT at that time.
> >> >> >> Is this something you can support?
> >> >>
>
>
