I actually find this clearer too. Like the odd/even micro release scheme.
Will then try to release version 2.0.2 of http service when I have fixed the
md5/sha1 issue.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sten Roger Sandvik schrieb:
> > So, what you guys are saying is
Sorry. Yes.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 10/1/09 17:17, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
>
>> Oh. Right. Now I see. You and Felix has actually the same method, except
>> one
>> uses minor odd/even strategy vs major odd/even strategy?
>>
>>
>
> Micro and minor, but yes.
>
>
On 10/1/09 17:17, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
Oh. Right. Now I see. You and Felix has actually the same method, except one
uses minor odd/even strategy vs major odd/even strategy?
Micro and minor, but yes.
-> richard
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Richard S. Hallwrote:
On 10/1/09 17
I think this approach is fine too.
However, OBR should be able to downgrade as easily as upgrade...
-> richard
On 10/1/09 17:12, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
Sten Roger Sandvik schrieb:
So, what you guys are saying is...
* Keep trunk as a major release, ex 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT.
* Release mino
Oh. Right. Now I see. You and Felix has actually the same method, except one
uses minor odd/even strategy vs major odd/even strategy?
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 10/1/09 17:01, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
>
>> So, what you guys are saying is...
>>
>> * Keep trunk as
On 10/1/09 17:01, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
So, what you guys are saying is...
* Keep trunk as a major release, ex 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT.
* Release minor releases 2.0.1 and still keep trunk as 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT.
Yes, this part would be ok, but...
* When 2.1.0 is released, update trunk to 2.2.0-SNA
Hi,
Sten Roger Sandvik schrieb:
> So, what you guys are saying is...
>
> * Keep trunk as a major release, ex 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT.
> * Release minor releases 2.0.1 and still keep trunk as 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT.
> * When 2.1.0 is released, update trunk to 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT.
>
> Right?
I personally, and my frame
So, what you guys are saying is...
* Keep trunk as a major release, ex 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT.
* Release minor releases 2.0.1 and still keep trunk as 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT.
* When 2.1.0 is released, update trunk to 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT.
Right?
/srs
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 10/1/0
On 10/1/09 16:36, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
Sten Roger Sandvik schrieb:
You are right. We should probably skip version 2.0.0 and go ahead to do a
version 2.0.1. I do not tag 2.0.0 since it's a failed release.
Or brather 2.0.2 because this is bundle release. The reason has been
out
Hi,
Sten Roger Sandvik schrieb:
> You are right. We should probably skip version 2.0.0 and go ahead to do a
> version 2.0.1. I do not tag 2.0.0 since it's a failed release.
Or brather 2.0.2 because this is bundle release. The reason has been
outline before but basically it is because Maven thinks
I noticed that I was not running the absolute last version. Will upgrade to
2.2.1...
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 10/1/09 11:16, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
>
>> Used version 2.2.0 on Mac (OSX 10.6).
>>
>>
>
> Well, you can always try to update to 2.2.1...
>
> On Th
On 10/1/09 11:16, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
Used version 2.2.0 on Mac (OSX 10.6).
Well, you can always try to update to 2.2.1...
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Karl Pauls wrote:
what version of maven did you use?
regards,
Karl
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Richard S. Hall
wr
You are right. We should probably skip version 2.0.0 and go ahead to do a
version 2.0.1. I do not tag 2.0.0 since it's a failed release.
/ srs
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 9/30/09 23:31, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the feedback. I will check out the
Used version 2.2.0 on Mac (OSX 10.6).
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Karl Pauls wrote:
> what version of maven did you use?
>
> regards,
>
> Karl
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Richard S. Hall
> wrote:
> > On 9/30/09 23:31, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the feedback. I
what version of maven did you use?
regards,
Karl
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 9/30/09 23:31, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. I will check out the MD5 and SHA1 digests. Also
>> will fix the issues that you are listing here. Was not sure ho
On 9/30/09 23:31, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I will check out the MD5 and SHA1 digests. Also
will fix the issues that you are listing here. Was not sure how to do the
NOTICE file so it was just a copy from something else :-) Do it need to be a
2.0.1 release? Could I just r
Now all the issues that Richard noted is fixed. Verified it a couple of
times so I think it's right this time. Only issue that remains is MD5/SHA1
missmatch. When I have figured that out I will propose a new release
candidate 2.0.0.
Regards,
Sten Roger Sandvik
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:55 PM, St
Hi all.
Sorry about problems with the release. I have now rolled back to before the
release candidate preparation. Will fix the issues raies by Richard and try
again. All artifacts is not available in the staging repository anymore, but
can be accessed using apache.snapshot repository.
BR,
Sten R
Thanks for the feedback. I will check out the MD5 and SHA1 digests. Also
will fix the issues that you are listing here. Was not sure how to do the
NOTICE file so it was just a copy from something else :-) Do it need to be a
2.0.1 release? Could I just rollback the release by rolling back the pom's
-1
There are quite a few issues, but it is really not all that
bad...actually, there is only one issue that is causing me to give a -1,
which is the fact that the MD5 and SHA1 digests don't appear to match
for me. Not sure why that would be the case.
There are also a raft of other more minor
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
> Not that many votes yet :-) Do people need more time to test the release?
Hi Stan,
I've done some testing already (for the httpservice especially), but
as far as I'm concerned I'll need some more time to try the bridge and
the whitebo
Hehe. Not worried. Just... well... a little worried :-)
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Don't worry, I am sure people are just busy...I am.
>
> The vote needs to run for a minimum of 72 hours...that is not the
> deadline...
>
> -> richard
>
>
> On 9/30/09 17:16, Sten Rog
Don't worry, I am sure people are just busy...I am.
The vote needs to run for a minimum of 72 hours...that is not the
deadline...
-> richard
On 9/30/09 17:16, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
Not that many votes yet :-) Do people need more time to test the release?
BR,
Sten Roger Sandvik
On Tue,
Not that many votes yet :-) Do people need more time to test the release?
BR,
Sten Roger Sandvik
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Rob Walker wrote:
> Our release process has been delayed, so haven't had a chance to try the
> new Http in our environment.
>
> Happy to add my +1 though if others h
Our release process has been delayed, so haven't had a chance to try the
new Http in our environment.
Happy to add my +1 though if others have and it's working well for them
- R
Yes, will try to finish somthing very soon. But here's a brief explanation
of the bundles that is important:
* jetty - Ready to run bundle that starts jetty (same as the previous 1.0.1
bundle), but with filter support trough
org.apache.felix.http.api.ExtHttpService.
* whiteboard - Bundle that enab
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have prepared a release candidate for the improved http service that I
> contributed earlier (FELIX-1456). It is versioned 2.0.0 since it's a major
> refactoring and includes much more functionality than the original
> http.je
Hi.
I have prepared a release candidate for the improved http service that I
contributed earlier (FELIX-1456). It is versioned 2.0.0 since it's a major
refactoring and includes much more functionality than the original
http.jetty module. Docs will be available on wiki very soon.
This is my first
28 matches
Mail list logo
