Re: 0.7 is nearly there
David Crossley wrote: Ross Gardler wrote: Ferdinand Soethe wrote: ? So how are we on fixing a schedule for the 0.7 release? As far as I can tell Ross is about to finish fixing and documenting the raw-html issue FOR-505 which leaves only FOR-500 as a blocker. FOR-505 is now done, I've not close because I feel it needs approval since I somewhat steamrollered the solution through. I think FOR-500 is pretty much complete. I know David did allot of work on this. There is more to it, not described at the FOR-500. I deliberately left it open because the whole trunk needs to be verified for license issues. I will do that at the last minute because people might add more stuff that needs license verification. I'll do FOR-522 tonight or tomorrow AM (this is not a blocker anyway) ? Any objection to starting the release process June 20th? +1 Why so late? I would prefer that we started on June 10. Also +1, basically I am not at a stage at the moment where I can block out a morning/afternoon to do the release, but I can certainly find the odd hour to test things, polish docs etc. Pick any date that suits, I'll help. Ross
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
> Why so late? I would prefer that we started on June 10. Fine by me. I have time from June 10 to 15th to chip in. -- Ferdinand Soethe
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Ross Gardler wrote: > Ferdinand Soethe wrote: > >? So how are we on fixing a schedule for the 0.7 release? > > > >As far as I can tell Ross is about to finish fixing and documenting > >the raw-html issue FOR-505 which leaves only FOR-500 as a blocker. > > FOR-505 is now done, I've not close because I feel it needs approval > since I somewhat steamrollered the solution through. > > I think FOR-500 is pretty much complete. I know David did allot of work > on this. There is more to it, not described at the FOR-500. I deliberately left it open because the whole trunk needs to be verified for license issues. I will do that at the last minute because people might add more stuff that needs license verification. > I'll do FOR-522 tonight or tomorrow AM (this is not a blocker anyway) > > >? Any objection to starting the release process June 20th? > > +1 Why so late? I would prefer that we started on June 10. The lead-up to end of financial year here (June 30) is when government clients finally spring into action and realise that there is a stack of work to be done. --David
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Ferdinand Soethe wrote: ? So how are we on fixing a schedule for the 0.7 release? As far as I can tell Ross is about to finish fixing and documenting the raw-html issue FOR-505 which leaves only FOR-500 as a blocker. FOR-505 is now done, I've not close because I feel it needs approval since I somewhat steamrollered the solution through. I think FOR-500 is pretty much complete. I know David did allot of work on this. I'll do FOR-522 tonight or tomorrow AM (this is not a blocker anyway) ? Any objection to starting the release process June 20th? +1 Ross
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
? So how are we on fixing a schedule for the 0.7 release? As far as I can tell Ross is about to finish fixing and documenting the raw-html issue FOR-505 which leaves only FOR-500 as a blocker. ? Any objection to starting the release process June 20th? ? Any more fuzzy feelings to be discussed before we set that date? Looking at the RELEASE_PROCESS.txt document I also wondered if we couldn't convert this into a chain of workflow steps in Jira to be reactivated and checked off for each release. I'll ask that in a separate thread. -- Ferdinand Soethe
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
David Crossley wrote: Ross Gardler wrote: David Crossley wrote: Ross Gardler wrote: Yes, that will go with a cocoon upgrade that needs to be done for two of the outstanding issues anyway. Which issues are you talking about Ross? Are they critical? "Lazy Mode: True" messages are just an output issue, I'm good with that. "character entities (e.g. ampersand) are expanded again for href or src attributes" (http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-241 ) is marked as major, comments indicate it is fixed in Cocoon trunk. Ah, no, i see that my comment has misled you. I just meant that the Cocoon Hello World sample did not exhibit the problem. It might be our sitemaps. Anyway, it is a known problem, we don't actually need to fix it. Ok This issue only affects users running in dynamic mode since the encoding of request parameters when creating a static site breaks the links anyway (there can be no '?' in a filename, so no static link can be made) The other issue seems to have been closed (or moved). I reckon that we should not wait for a Cocoon upgrade. Since I don't have Linux right now and Juan (I think it was Juan who took the time to try the upgrade, apologies if I'm not giving the credit to the right person) has encountered problems with the upgrade I am +1 on going ahead without the upgrade. Lets just say if we don't get a -1 in the next three days we will go ahead and move those issues to 0.8. If someone wants to -1 this proposal then *they* will have to do the upgrade - fair enough? Yes Juan==Cheche did try, and he contacted cocoon-dev and got positive reply to his specific issue. However other people are saying cocoon trunk is not stable. Well if it is not stable then I suppose we best stick with what we have and know to be stable (enough). I'll also finsih FOR-454, major changes are now marked up in status.xml, we need a stylesheet for projectInfo to allow them to be included in relevant docs with xi:include (unless someone gets there first of course). FOR-454 was actually about adding more content to "upgrading_07" doc. That should be a group effort, but if you get time to try that would be good. The extra improvement about getting announcement automatically notes out of the status.xml is a bonus, we don't need it for release. We can just manually write the etc/announcement-0.7.txt We don't need it for a release, but since we now have an importance tag in status.xml and I've already gone through marking the changes I believe to be important enough it is only a small step (and in fact is almost complete on my hard drive, I expect to commit today). That leaves: FOR-391 website docs/site split http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-391 Which I believe is complete but for thorough testing, the creation of the 0.8 set of docs and the move to 0.7 as the default (the move should be done as part of the release process) This is currently assigned to David, but I believe this is a job for many eyes now. We need people to look for problems. Shall we post a request to the user list to check these docs? Job is done. That is a good idea. The dev list too. There must be a lot of lurkers. What would we ask? We don't want reports that we need more docs about so-and-so or that we need to create a beginners tutorial. Mainly we need to find instructions and pathnames that still relate to 0.6 version. Anything else can wait until 0.8-dev I suppose we are looking for broken links and the like. How about this as a draft email: --- Subject: Please help with document review We are very close to releasing version 0.7 of Apache Forrest. As part of this release we have upgraded our documentation system so that the website houses separate documents for each release. You can see the home page of the 0.7 documents at http://forrest.apache.org/0.7/docs/index.html We would appreciate the help of all users and devs in ensuring that our documentation does not contain any obvious errors. In particular we are looking for: - broken links - references to version 0.6 - instructions or documentation that applies to a feature of 0.6 that has been changed in some way - spelling and grammar corrections If you find any problems please open a bug report via http://issues.cocoondev.org/secure/CreateIssue!default.jspa If you can attach a patch or suggested correct to the bug report that would be very much appreciated. We'll ensure it goes into the release and you get full credit. Please note, we are not looking for requests for more docs or tutorials. We know there is a need for these and this is an ongoing effort. This particular review is about the accuracy of our existing documentation. Thanks for your assistance. --- Of course, my proposal to require a "-1 and a fix" could be seen as railroading the release, it is a step ahead of lazy consensus, ... What about when that person gets drawn off by other itches and we have a half-finished
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Ross Gardler wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > >Ross Gardler wrote: > > > >>Yes, that will go with a cocoon upgrade that needs to be done for two of > >>the outstanding issues anyway. > > > >Which issues are you talking about Ross? Are they critical? > > "Lazy Mode: True" messages are just an output issue, I'm good with that. > > "character entities (e.g. ampersand) are expanded again for href or src > attributes" (http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-241 ) is marked as > major, comments indicate it is fixed in Cocoon trunk. Ah, no, i see that my comment has misled you. I just meant that the Cocoon Hello World sample did not exhibit the problem. It might be our sitemaps. Anyway, it is a known problem, we don't actually need to fix it. > This issue only affects users running in dynamic mode since the encoding > of request parameters when creating a static site breaks the links > anyway (there can be no '?' in a filename, so no static link can be made) > > The other issue seems to have been closed (or moved). > > >I reckon that we should not wait for a Cocoon upgrade. > > Since I don't have Linux right now and Juan (I think it was Juan who > took the time to try the upgrade, apologies if I'm not giving the > credit to the right person) has encountered problems with the upgrade I > am +1 on going ahead without the upgrade. Lets just say if we don't get > a -1 in the next three days we will go ahead and move those issues to > 0.8. If someone wants to -1 this proposal then *they* will have to do > the upgrade - fair enough? Yes Juan==Cheche did try, and he contacted cocoon-dev and got positive reply to his specific issue. However other people are saying cocoon trunk is not stable. > >I will attend to FOR-500 verifying the licenses for supporting > >products and generally ensure that our own work is properly > >licensed, but i don't want to do that until just before release > >in case more stuff gets added. > > I'll finish FOR-470 (update seed site) > > I'll also finsih FOR-454, major changes are now marked up in status.xml, > we need a stylesheet for projectInfo to allow them to be included in > relevant docs with xi:include (unless someone gets there first of course). FOR-454 was actually about adding more content to "upgrading_07" doc. That should be a group effort, but if you get time to try that would be good. The extra improvement about getting announcement automatically notes out of the status.xml is a bonus, we don't need it for release. We can just manually write the etc/announcement-0.7.txt > That leaves: > > FOR-391website docs/site split > http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-391 > > Which I believe is complete but for thorough testing, the creation of > the 0.8 set of docs and the move to 0.7 as the default (the move should > be done as part of the release process) > > This is currently assigned to David, but I believe this is a job for > many eyes now. We need people to look for problems. Shall we post a > request to the user list to check these docs? Job is done. That is a good idea. The dev list too. There must be a lot of lurkers. What would we ask? We don't want reports that we need more docs about so-and-so or that we need to create a beginners tutorial. Mainly we need to find instructions and pathnames that still relate to 0.6 version. Anything else can wait until 0.8-dev > --- > > FOR-465Logging Error: Writing event to closed stream. > http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-465 > > I have no idea what is causing this so someone needs to do some initial > evaluation. > > I'd be OK with this still being in the release as it does not affect the > usability of Forrest. So again, I propose we release without this fixed > unless someone votes -1 *and* fixes it for us. > > --- > > Of course, my proposal to require a "-1 and a fix" could be seen as > railroading the release, it is a step ahead of lazy consensus, ... What about when that person gets drawn off by other itches and we have a half-finished solution. Delay. > ... so I > won't argue the point if devs feel this is not an appropriate. I just > want to get this release out. Don't we all. --David
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
David Crossley wrote: Ross Gardler wrote: Juan Jose Pablos wrote: Ross Gardler wrote: There are now only 5 issues open on the 0.7 release. 3 of them are documentation issues, so anyone can pitch in here. 2 of them are Cocoon issues and will either be fixed with a cocoon upgrade, or we will not be able to fix them for 0.7 Is it time we planned for a release date? (again) The "Lazy mode: true" output looks very awfull Yes, that will go with a cocoon upgrade that needs to be done for two of the outstanding issues anyway. Which issues are you talking about Ross? Are they critical? "Lazy Mode: True" messages are just an output issue, I'm good with that. "character entities (e.g. ampersand) are expanded again for href or src attributes" (http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-241 ) is marked as major, comments indicate it is fixed in Cocoon trunk. This issue only affects users running in dynamic mode since the encoding of request parameters when creating a static site breaks the links anyway (there can be no '?' in a filename, so no static link can be made) The other issue seems to have been closed (or moved). I reckon that we should not wait for a Cocoon upgrade. Since I don't have Linux right now and Juan (I think it was Juan who took the time to try the upgrade, apologies if I'm not giving the credit to the right person) has encountered problems with the upgrade I am +1 on going ahead without the upgrade. Lets just say if we don't get a -1 in the next three days we will go ahead and move those issues to 0.8. If someone wants to -1 this proposal then *they* will have to do the upgrade - fair enough? I will attend to FOR-500 verifying the licenses for supporting products and generally ensure that our own work is properly licensed, but i don't want to do that until just before release in case more stuff gets added. I'll finish FOR-470 (update seed site) I'll also finsih FOR-454, major changes are now marked up in status.xml, we need a stylesheet for projectInfo to allow them to be included in relevant docs with xi:include (unless someone gets there first of course). That leaves: FOR-391 website docs/site split http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-391 Which I believe is complete but for thorough testing, the creation of the 0.8 set of docs and the move to 0.7 as the default (the move should be done as part of the release process) This is currently assigned to David, but I believe this is a job for many eyes now. We need people to look for problems. Shall we post a request to the user list to check these docs? --- FOR-465 Logging Error: Writing event to closed stream. http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-465 I have no idea what is causing this so someone needs to do some initial evaluation. I'd be OK with this still being in the release as it does not affect the usability of Forrest. So again, I propose we release without this fixed unless someone votes -1 *and* fixes it for us. --- Of course, my proposal to require a "-1 and a fix" could be seen as railroading the release, it is a step ahead of lazy consensus, so I won't argue the point if devs feel this is not an appropriate. I just want to get this release out. Ross
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Sorry but http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-470 is still open since I didn't get to fix the examples in fresh site. Everythings else is done, but I won't get to do the test and documentation before June 2nd. -- Ferdinand Soethe
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Ross Gardler wrote: > Juan Jose Pablos wrote: > >Ross Gardler wrote: > > > >>There are now only 5 issues open on the 0.7 release. > >> > >>3 of them are documentation issues, so anyone can pitch in here. > >> > >>2 of them are Cocoon issues and will either be fixed with a cocoon > >>upgrade, or we will not be able to fix them for 0.7 > >> > >>Is it time we planned for a release date? (again) > > > >The "Lazy mode: true" output looks very awfull > > Yes, that will go with a cocoon upgrade that needs to be done for two of > the outstanding issues anyway. Which issues are you talking about Ross? Are they critical? I reckon that we should not wait for a Cocoon upgrade. I will attend to FOR-500 verifying the licenses for supporting products and generally ensure that our own work is properly licensed, but i don't want to do that until just before release in case more stuff gets added. As we have said before, we do not need to solve every issue that is listed. --David
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Antonio Gallardo wrote: ... 1.6.3 is an older version? This is the lastest "stable" released. I read the ant mailing list, and they are releasing 1.6.4 as a 1.6.3 bigfix. Released != bugfree. BTW, even the current in forrest rerpo is buggy. If not, hence there will not need for bug fixing. ;-) The question is: do the existing bugs bite us? If not, we can wait for some weeks after a release before upgrading. I'm not aware of any bugs in the current version of ANT we have that are affecting us. Personally I see no need to change it. On the other hand, there are a few issues in Cocoon that are affecting us, I'm not sure if they have been fixed in Cocoon head or not. Unfortunately, I am currently without a Linux machine (It hurts I can tell you), and so I am not able to update Cocoon to test it since the scripts in FORREST_HOME/etc/cocoon_upgrade will not run under Cygwin (alias and popd/pushd not supported) Can someone with Linux please upgrade the Cocoon jars to see if it fixes: - the "Lazy mode: false" message - http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-241 - http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-465 (actually looking at this one again, I'm not sure it is a COcoon problem) Ross
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Antonio Gallardo wrote: ... 1.6.3 is an older version? This is the lastest "stable" released. I read the ant mailing list, and they are releasing 1.6.4 as a 1.6.3 bigfix. Released != bugfree. BTW, even the current in forrest rerpo is buggy. If not, hence there will not need for bug fixing. ;-) The question is: do the existing bugs bite us? If not, we can wait for some weeks after a release before upgrading. All in all, I am +1 for waiting to 1.6.4. We can release few days later. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Antonio Gallardo wrote: > David Crossley dijo: > > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > >> Antonio Gallardo wrote: > >> >David Crossley dijo: > >> > > >> >>Antonio Gallardo wrote: > >> ... > >> >>>I suggest to add ant 2.6.3. It brings better java 1.5 support and lot > >> of > >> >>>fixes: > >> >>> > >> >>>http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/WHATSNEW?only_with_tag=ANT_163&view=markup > >> >> > >> >>Okay, i for one, am happy that "somebody" updates our libraries. > >> > > >> >Ping! :-) OKAY I will do this. :-) > >> > >> 1.6.3 has some bugs that have come out just after release. > >> They are releasing 1.6.4 on Thursday, May 19th. > >> > >> This is an example of why we should not upgrade a library just after > >> it's released if there is not an important bugfix for us in it. > > > > That is why i suggested that if we do want to upgrade our > > libraries, then we can use a current snapshot or pre-release. > > I didn't realise that Antonio was suggesting an older version. > > 1.6.3 is an older version? This is the lastest "stable" released. It is older than the current head of their trunk. > BTW, > even the current in forrest rerpo is buggy. If not, hence there will not > need for bug fixing. ;-) > > All in all, I am +1 for waiting to 1.6.4. We can release few days later. That is the issue. We don't want to wait until then to commence our release testing phase. It might actually turn out that we are not ready by then anway. --David
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
On Sab, 14 de Mayo de 2005, 19:43, David Crossley dijo: > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: >> Antonio Gallardo wrote: >> >David Crossley dijo: >> > >> >>Antonio Gallardo wrote: >> ... >> >>>I suggest to add ant 2.6.3. It brings better java 1.5 support and lot >> of >> >>>fixes: >> >>> >> >>>http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/WHATSNEW?only_with_tag=ANT_163&view=markup >> >> >> >>Okay, i for one, am happy that "somebody" updates our libraries. >> > >> >Ping! :-) OKAY I will do this. :-) >> >> 1.6.3 has some bugs that have come out just after release. >> They are releasing 1.6.4 on Thursday, May 19th. >> >> This is an example of why we should not upgrade a library just after >> it's released if there is not an important bugfix for us in it. > > That is why i suggested that if we do want to upgrade our > libraries, then we can use a current snapshot or pre-release. > I didn't realise that Antonio was suggesting an older version. 1.6.3 is an older version? This is the lastest "stable" released. BTW, even the current in forrest rerpo is buggy. If not, hence there will not need for bug fixing. ;-) All in all, I am +1 for waiting to 1.6.4. We can release few days later. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Antonio Gallardo wrote: > >David Crossley dijo: > > > >>Antonio Gallardo wrote: > ... > >>>I suggest to add ant 2.6.3. It brings better java 1.5 support and lot of > >>>fixes: > >>> > >>>http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/WHATSNEW?only_with_tag=ANT_163&view=markup > >> > >>Okay, i for one, am happy that "somebody" updates our libraries. > > > >Ping! :-) OKAY I will do this. :-) > > 1.6.3 has some bugs that have come out just after release. > They are releasing 1.6.4 on Thursday, May 19th. > > This is an example of why we should not upgrade a library just after > it's released if there is not an important bugfix for us in it. That is why i suggested that if we do want to upgrade our libraries, then we can use a current snapshot or pre-release. I didn't realise that Antonio was suggesting an older version. --David
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Antonio Gallardo wrote: On Sab, 14 de Mayo de 2005, 3:56, David Crossley dijo: Antonio Gallardo wrote: ... I suggest to add ant 2.6.3. It brings better java 1.5 support and lot of fixes: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/WHATSNEW?only_with_tag=ANT_163&view=markup Okay, i for one, am happy that "somebody" updates our libraries. Ping! :-) OKAY I will do this. :-) 1.6.3 has some bugs that have come out just after release. They are releasing 1.6.4 on Thursday, May 19th. This is an example of why we should not upgrade a library just after it's released if there is not an important bugfix for us in it. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) -
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
On Sab, 14 de Mayo de 2005, 3:56, David Crossley dijo: > Antonio Gallardo wrote: >> David Crossley dijo: >> > scott hutinger wrote: >> >> >> >> If a newer version of xerces were in place, I would say yes. But >> that >> >> is not the case, as xerces has not released anything as of yet. >> >> That isn't truly Ant related, but just one point of view. >> > >> > We can use pre-releases of these supporting products, we don't >> > need to wait for a final release. An svn snapshot is fine. >> > >> > If people have an actual need for updated libraries, then >> > please say so. We can add them now, because we will be >> > going into a testing phase soon. >> > >> >> Ross Gardler wrote: >> >> >Is there any justification for delaying our release in order >> >> >to include this version of ANT? >> > >> > See above for an alternative. I suggest, with our imminent >> > release, that we stick with what we have working now. >> >> I suggest to add ant 2.6.3. It brings better java 1.5 support and lot of >> fixes: >> >> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/WHATSNEW?only_with_tag=ANT_163&view=markup > > Okay, i for one, am happy that "somebody" updates our libraries. Ping! :-) OKAY I will do this. :-) Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo.
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Antonio Gallardo wrote: > David Crossley dijo: > > scott hutinger wrote: > >> > >> If a newer version of xerces were in place, I would say yes. But that > >> is not the case, as xerces has not released anything as of yet. > >> That isn't truly Ant related, but just one point of view. > > > > We can use pre-releases of these supporting products, we don't > > need to wait for a final release. An svn snapshot is fine. > > > > If people have an actual need for updated libraries, then > > please say so. We can add them now, because we will be > > going into a testing phase soon. > > > >> Ross Gardler wrote: > >> >Is there any justification for delaying our release in order > >> >to include this version of ANT? > > > > See above for an alternative. I suggest, with our imminent > > release, that we stick with what we have working now. > > I suggest to add ant 2.6.3. It brings better java 1.5 support and lot of > fixes: > > http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/WHATSNEW?only_with_tag=ANT_163&view=markup Okay, i for one, am happy that "somebody" updates our libraries. WDOT --David
Re: AW: 0.7 is nearly there
On Vie, 13 de Mayo de 2005, 22:30, David Crossley dijo: > scott hutinger wrote: >> >> If a newer version of xerces were in place, I would say yes. But that >> is not the case, as xerces has not released anything as of yet. >> That isn't truly Ant related, but just one point of view. > > We can use pre-releases of these supporting products, we don't > need to wait for a final release. An svn snapshot is fine. > > If people have an actual need for updated libraries, then > please say so. We can add them now, because we will be > going into a testing phase soon. > >> Ross Gardler wrote: >> >Is there any justification for delaying our release in order >> >to include this version of ANT? > > See above for an alternative. I suggest, with our imminent > release, that we stick with what we have working now. I suggest to add ant 2.6.3. It brings better java 1.5 support and lot of fixes: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/WHATSNEW?only_with_tag=ANT_163&view=markup Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo > > --David >
Re: AW: 0.7 is nearly there
scott hutinger wrote: > > If a newer version of xerces were in place, I would say yes. But that > is not the case, as xerces has not released anything as of yet. > That isn't truly Ant related, but just one point of view. We can use pre-releases of these supporting products, we don't need to wait for a final release. An svn snapshot is fine. If people have an actual need for updated libraries, then please say so. We can add them now, because we will be going into a testing phase soon. > Ross Gardler wrote: > >Is there any justification for delaying our release in order > >to include this version of ANT? See above for an alternative. I suggest, with our imminent release, that we stick with what we have working now. --David
Re: AW: 0.7 is nearly there
Ross Gardler wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 19th Ant 1.6.4 will be released [1], if you want to include that, maybe one or two weeks later for testing? If a newer version of xerces were in place, I would say yes. But that is not the case, as xerces has not released anything as of yet. That isn't truly Ant related, but just one point of view. scott Is there any justification for delaying our release in order to include this version of ANT? Ross
0.7 is nearly there, but table alignment problem with pelt and IE still not fixed
Just would like to ask if anybody have found a solution to: Table alignment problem with pelt and IE = Bug FOR-336 (http://issues.cocoondev.org/browse/FOR-336) -Sten Aksel On 5/13/05, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are now only 5 issues open on the 0.7 release. > > 3 of them are documentation issues, so anyone can pitch in here. > > 2 of them are Cocoon issues and will either be fixed with a cocoon > upgrade, or we will not be able to fix them for 0.7 > > Is it time we planned for a release date? (again) > > Ross >
Re: AW: 0.7 is nearly there
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 19th Ant 1.6.4 will be released [1], if you want to include that, maybe one or two weeks later for testing? Is there any justification for delaying our release in order to include this version of ANT? Ross
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Juan Jose Pablos wrote: Ross Gardler wrote: There are now only 5 issues open on the 0.7 release. 3 of them are documentation issues, so anyone can pitch in here. 2 of them are Cocoon issues and will either be fixed with a cocoon upgrade, or we will not be able to fix them for 0.7 Is it time we planned for a release date? (again) Ross The "Lazy mode: true" output looks very awfull Yes, that will go with a cocoon upgrade that needs to be done for two of the outstanding issues anyway. Ross
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Juan Jose Pablos wrote: > Ross Gardler wrote: >> There are now only 5 issues open on the 0.7 release. >> >> 3 of them are documentation issues, so anyone can pitch in here. >> >> 2 of them are Cocoon issues and will either be fixed with a cocoon >> upgrade, or we will not be able to fix them for 0.7 >> >> Is it time we planned for a release date? (again) >> >> Ross >> >> > The "Lazy mode: true" output looks very awfull ye! -- Ferdinand Soethe
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Ross Gardler wrote: > There are now only 5 issues open on the 0.7 release. > > 3 of them are documentation issues, so anyone can pitch in here. > > 2 of them are Cocoon issues and will either be fixed with a cocoon > upgrade, or we will not be able to fix them for 0.7 > > Is it time we planned for a release date? (again) > > Ross > > The "Lazy mode: true" output looks very awful
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Ross Gardler wrote: > There are now only 5 issues open on the 0.7 release. > > 3 of them are documentation issues, so anyone can pitch in here. > > 2 of them are Cocoon issues and will either be fixed with a cocoon > upgrade, or we will not be able to fix them for 0.7 > > Is it time we planned for a release date? (again) > > Ross > > The "Lazy mode: true" output looks very awfull
AW: 0.7 is nearly there
Title: AW: 0.7 is nearly there On May 19th Ant 1.6.4 will be released [1], if you want to include that, maybe one or two weeks later for testing? Jan [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-dev&m=111570775312127&w=2 > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: David Crossley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Gesendet am: Freitag, 13. Mai 2005 04:04 > An: dev@forrest.apache.org > Betreff: Re: 0.7 is nearly there > > Ross Gardler wrote: > > There are now only 5 issues open on the 0.7 release. > > > > 3 of them are documentation issues, so anyone can pitch in here. > > > > 2 of them are Cocoon issues and will either be fixed with a cocoon > > upgrade, or we will not be able to fix them for 0.7 > > > > Is it time we planned for a release date? (again) > > Yes, i believe it is. Let us suggest some dates. > > --David >
Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Ross Gardler wrote: > There are now only 5 issues open on the 0.7 release. > > 3 of them are documentation issues, so anyone can pitch in here. > > 2 of them are Cocoon issues and will either be fixed with a cocoon > upgrade, or we will not be able to fix them for 0.7 > > Is it time we planned for a release date? (again) Yes, i believe it is. Let us suggest some dates. --David
0.7 is nearly there
There are now only 5 issues open on the 0.7 release. 3 of them are documentation issues, so anyone can pitch in here. 2 of them are Cocoon issues and will either be fixed with a cocoon upgrade, or we will not be able to fix them for 0.7 Is it time we planned for a release date? (again) Ross
