The branches have been removed except for 'continuum-site_1.1' which had
some updates a few months ago. If this is not required please feel free
to remove.
Rahul
Olivier Lamy wrote:
IMHO, we can remove.
2008/3/10, Rahul Thakur<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
There are some other branches residing
IMHO, we can remove.
2008/3/10, Rahul Thakur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> There are some other branches residing in Continuum SVN. Should we
> remove any (or all) of the following if they are not in active
> development? I know (id-refactor and key-based-refactor can go)
>
> # continuum-acegi
> #
There are some other branches residing in Continuum SVN. Should we
remove any (or all) of the following if they are not in active
development? I know (id-refactor and key-based-refactor can go)
# continuum-acegi
# continuum-site_1.1
# gbuild
# id-refactor
# key-based-refactor
# osworkflow-int
2008/3/4, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 05/03/2008, at 5:18 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> > 2008/3/4, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>
> >> On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> >>
> >>> Agree on this.
> >>> Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUU
On 05/03/2008, at 5:18 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
2008/3/4, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Agree on this.
Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590
which
prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
Cool - shall we just start using t
2008/3/4, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> > Agree on this.
> > Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which
> > prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
>
>
> Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are
Brett Porter wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
why 1.1.x?
in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the
branch
On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Agree on this.
Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which
prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are
only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 is
Agree on this.
Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which
prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom
as parent.
--
Olivier
2008/3/4, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Veni
On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
why 1.1.x?
in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what
the
branch was for... mainte
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>
> > why 1.1.x?
>
> in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the
> branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.
>
> or is there going to be 2 complet
On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
why 1.1.x?
in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the
branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.
or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of development?
- Brett
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM,
why 1.1.x?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on
> a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and
> none merged to the other.
>
> Can I suggest we merge all
13 matches
Mail list logo
