On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 08:30, Anil Gangolli wrote: > I went through the install process both clean and upgrade. > > I had no problems with the clean install.. > > I had a few problems with an upgrade install from 1.2 to 2.0. > > The upgrade guide should probably also talk about custom themes and > images. These also need to be copied from the old webapp. [I was > referring to images from within my custom theme. I can't remember if > this is due to a macro we support or one of my own customizations. If > it's something from the distribution, we should fix the guide.] > > Also, Allen could perhaps comment on whether the instructions about > upgrading all the way from 1.0 to 2.0 via the db scripts work. I seem > to remember that up to about 1.1 or 1.2, one actually had to run the > code to get some of the application-driven config upgrade to work > right. Or am I mistaken?
I'm not sure exactly what the deal is with the upgrade process from pre 1.2. I believe that before Roller 1.3 the UpgradeDatabase class had some code which was specific to upgrading to/from Roller 0.9? Someone would have to go back and check the old revisions to see. My expectation was always that since we didn't define a steady upgrade process before Roller 1.3 that users were expected to do each upgrade in succession rather than jumping multiple versions at one time. However, if Dave says it works then that's fine with me. -- Allen > > Other than that, things were fine. Note: I used the mysql upgrade > scripts in the distro (didn't try the alternate one on the wiki). > > I'm +1 on the release. > > --a. > > > Matt Raible wrote: > > >+1 > > > >On 11/23/05, Elias Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>+1 for release. > >> > >>On 11/22/05, Anil Gangolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I haven't had time to check out the latest release candidate. I hope to > >>>try both a clean and upgrade install before voting, hopefully tonight. > >>> > >>>No objections to branching if you want to move ahead on trunk development. > >>> > >>>--a. > >>> > >>> > >>>Dave Johnson wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>A release candidate is ready to go, docs are up to date and we have > >>>>two +1 votes for release: > >>>> Henri +1 > >>>> Dave +1 > >>>> > >>>>Let's wrap up this vote and declare 2.0 done. > >>>> > >>>>Allen and I are proceeding with Roller 2.1 features. So if we are not > >>>>ready for immediate release, I'd like to move the trunk to > >>>>branches/roller_2.0. Once the release is final I'll move that to > >>>>tags/roller_2.0. Any objections to that? > >>>> > >>>>- Dave > >>>> > >>>>PS: here's a link to the updated docs for 2.0 > >>>>Roller 2.0 docs: > >>>>http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=RollerDocumentation_2.x > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>On Nov 7, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Dave Johnson wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>On Nov 7, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>that's fine with me, but do we really have Roller 2.1 code ready to > >>>>>>be committed? i have stuff in my workspace that is meant for 2.1, > >>>>>>but it's not really ready to be committed yet. Are we that far > >>>>>>away from a 2.0 release that we need the branch? Couldn't these > >>>>>>things be finalized by the end of the week? AFAIK the only things > >>>>>>outstanding are db script related. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>I was assuming finalization of Roller 2.0 was further off than > >>>>>that, but you are correct we're basically done and should get > >>>>>Roller 2.0 out of the way. So here goes... > >>>>> > >>>>>The code in the Roller trunk, aka Roller 2.0, is stable and has been > >>>>>running in production > >>>>>at multiple sites for over a week now. There are no issues open > >>>>>against this release, > >>>>>so I propose that we release this code at Java.Net now as: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Roller 2.0 (Incubating)" > >>>>> > >>>>>The release will be made up of three files. > >>>>> > >>>>> roller-2.0-incubating.tar.gz - the complete Roller webapp > >>>>> roller-2.0-incubating-src.tar.gz - Roller source code > >>>>> roller-2.0-incubating-tools.tar.gz - the jars required to > >>>>>build from source > >>>>> > >>>>>According to the incubator docs: > >>>>><http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/ > >>>>>Incubation_Policy.html#Releases%0D> > >>>>>We need the endorsement of a mentor and the approval of the > >>>>>Incubator PMC. > >>>>>So mentors, please advise. > >>>>> > >>>>>- Dave > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>-- Allen > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 06:27, Dave Johnson wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Some of us are about to start post-2.0 work, and, in fact, I've > >>>>>>>already > >>>>>>>got some changes to support the Atom protocol that I don't want to > >>>>>>>commit to 2.0. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>So, it's not part of the Roller release plan, but I think we need a > >>>>>>>roller_2.0 branch > >>>>>>>http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=RollerReleasePlan > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>The purpose of the branch would be to make the final preparations for > >>>>>>>Roller 2.0 release. Once 2.0 is released, we'd merge roller_2.0 to > >>>>>>>trunk and we'd copy roller_2.0 to tags. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Any comments/concerns? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>- Dave > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > >
