Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish". > Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but > also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49 aswell? Sander
Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
+1 Brad Brad Nicholes Senior Software Engineer Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions http://www.novell.com >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:34:44 AM >>> On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish". > Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but > also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49 aswell? Sander
Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
We have a showstopper, don't we? On Feb 18, 2004, at 12:34 PM, Sander Striker wrote: On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:28, Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like to float the idea of releasing 1.3.30 "soonish". Not only are there enough changes to warrant a release, but also to coincide with the changeover to AL 2.0. In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49 aswell? Sander -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote: > In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49 > aswell? +1, but let's make sure to get the mod_usertrack fix finally committed. Jim already committed it to 1.3.x as far as I know, and there's no reason not to commit it to 2.0.x and 2.1.x except I just kept forgetting to do so. --Cliff
RE: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Ummm... as the person who created the new bug (by successfully stomping a years-old one in the same module), I have a particular interest in the solution of this bug. I had submitted a patch to the 2.x series on bugzilla, and, eventually, things died down with no direction, so I waited for feedback. So is Jim's patch already ported to 2.x? Is there another forum where this got resolved? Also, in future, should I take more initiative and submit a complete trio of patches instead of waiting for feedback? Helping out is rewarding, but sometimes confusing for newbies like me. Regardless, thanks, all, for helping fix this bug. Cheers, -Manni -Original Message- From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30?? On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote: > In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49 > aswell? +1, but let's make sure to get the mod_usertrack fix finally committed. Jim already committed it to 1.3.x as far as I know, and there's no reason not to commit it to 2.0.x and 2.1.x except I just kept forgetting to do so. --Cliff
Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Manni, What I did was take the latest/working 2.0.x patch (from the PR report), and backported it to 1.3. I didn't patch the 2.x trees at the same time, because I simply forgot. :/ I believe Cliff is doing that as we speak. On Feb 18, 2004, at 2:33 PM, Manni Wood wrote: Ummm... as the person who created the new bug (by successfully stomping a years-old one in the same module), I have a particular interest in the solution of this bug. I had submitted a patch to the 2.x series on bugzilla, and, eventually, things died down with no direction, so I waited for feedback. So is Jim's patch already ported to 2.x? Is there another forum where this got resolved? Also, in future, should I take more initiative and submit a complete trio of patches instead of waiting for feedback? Helping out is rewarding, but sometimes confusing for newbies like me. Regardless, thanks, all, for helping fix this bug. Cheers, -Manni -Original Message- From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30?? On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote: In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49 aswell? +1, but let's make sure to get the mod_usertrack fix finally committed. Jim already committed it to 1.3.x as far as I know, and there's no reason not to commit it to 2.0.x and 2.1.x except I just kept forgetting to do so. --Cliff -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
RE: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30??
Jim, Now I understand. Thanks to you and Cliff for helping stomp this bug! -Manni -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30?? Manni, What I did was take the latest/working 2.0.x patch (from the PR report), and backported it to 1.3. I didn't patch the 2.x trees at the same time, because I simply forgot. :/ I believe Cliff is doing that as we speak. On Feb 18, 2004, at 2:33 PM, Manni Wood wrote: > Ummm... as the person who created the new bug (by successfully stomping > a years-old one in the same module), I have a particular interest in > the > solution of this bug. I had submitted a patch to the 2.x series on > bugzilla, and, eventually, things died down with no direction, so I > waited for feedback. So is Jim's patch already ported to 2.x? Is there > another forum where this got resolved? Also, in future, should I take > more initiative and submit a complete trio of patches instead of > waiting > for feedback? Helping out is rewarding, but sometimes confusing for > newbies like me. > > Regardless, thanks, all, for helping fix this bug. > > Cheers, > > -Manni > > -Original Message- > From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Time for 2.0.49, WAS: Re: Time for 1.3.30?? > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote: > >> In response to this, how do we feel about doing 2.0.49 >> aswell? > > +1, but let's make sure to get the mod_usertrack fix finally committed. > Jim already committed it to 1.3.x as far as I know, and there's no > reason > not to commit it to 2.0.x and 2.1.x except I just kept forgetting to do > so. > > --Cliff > > -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
