Hi *,
I wonder if we should switch the trunk to be the 1.2 branch now, cause
our next release will surely be fully 1.2 compatible (Tomcat 6 is out
now, so the sooner we're done, the better)... We'll have a lot better
testing of 1.2 if we do it like this - wdyt?
regards,
Martin
--
+1
On 4/18/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi *,
I wonder if we should switch the trunk to be the 1.2 branch now, cause
our next release will surely be fully 1.2 compatible (Tomcat 6 is out
now, so the sooner we're done, the better)... We'll have a lot better
testing of 1.2 if
Sounds like a good idea.
One question however: Tomcat 6 requires JDK 5. Does this mean that the
trunk will drop JDK 1.4 compatibility?
Regards,
Erik-Berndt
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: woensdag 18 april 2007 10:07
Aan: MyFaces
Jetty is also ready ;)
On 4/18/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi *,
I wonder if we should switch the trunk to be the 1.2 branch now, cause
our next release will surely be fully 1.2 compatible (Tomcat 6 is out
now, so the sooner we're done, the better)... We'll have a lot better
Ok, I'll start a vote - this is important enough that we should do a vote.
regards,
Martin
On 4/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jetty is also ready ;)
On 4/18/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi *,
I wonder if we should switch the trunk to be the 1.2
Hi *,
this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
Steps in doing this:
- branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
- merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
work, I'll tackle it)
my +1 for doing this right now.
regards,
Martin
--
http://www.irian.at
Erik, JSF 1.2 also requires 1.5
the MYFACES_1_1_X branch will stay w/ Java 1.4 (or 1.3; not sure what
the spec wants).
-M
On 4/18/07, Scheper, Erik-Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like a good idea.
One question however: Tomcat 6 requires JDK 5. Does this mean that the
trunk will drop
What is in head that needs to be merged with the 1.2 branch? Why not
move head to 1.1.5_1 and move 1.2 to head?
I'm rather worried that the spec compliance will go down drastically
if there are extensive merges.
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 18, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
+1
This will help to finish the 1.2 development. I am not sure about a
complete merge of the head and the 1.2 branch (it is a lot of work!).
Maybe I will put the 1.2 branch as trunk and apply fixes (maybe
existing fixes in for 1.1) in the trunk as the issues arise?) However,
if you want to
On 18/04/07, Bruno Aranda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
This will help to finish the 1.2 development. I am not sure about a
complete merge of the head and the 1.2 branch (it is a lot of work!).
Maybe I will put the 1.2 branch as trunk and apply fixes (maybe
Read I would put instead of I will
:-)
+1
On 4/18/07, Bruno Aranda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18/04/07, Bruno Aranda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
This will help to finish the 1.2 development. I am not sure about a
complete merge of the head and the 1.2 branch (it is a lot of work!).
Maybe I will put the 1.2 branch as trunk
+1 but without a merge of the 1.1 trunk into 1.2. We have to select
each individual issue. That is quite time consuming and shouldn't be
done with this step.
What about this:
move current trunk to a 1.1 branch and
move current 1.2 branch to trunk.
That is quite a small step without any side
Popup-Background renders wrong size in IE
-
Key: TOBAGO-358
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOBAGO-358
Project: MyFaces Tobago
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Core
Affects
Yes.
+1 for a switch
But let's discuss the how first.
Just had a look at the tomcat repo and I like the structure they use.
Main issue is that they do not name their trunk folder trunk but
rather give it a name corresponding to the actual major/minor version
(eg tc5.5.x). I like this idea.
And
maven-metadata.xml for the myfaces-shared-tomahawk artifact of the
repository [1] looks incorrect. Specifically the list of versions is
missing other version in the repository. All of the MyFaces shared
artifacts have the same issue.
Paul Spencer
[1]
Users looking at MyFaces Products do not have one place that lists the
products and their supported environments. Below is a example of what I
would expect.
Product\Spec | Java| Tomcat/Sevlet |
| 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 6.0 |
MyFaces | Y | Y | ? |
+1 for making the 1.2 tag the main show.
I'm pretty confident that merging is no longer an option. The code bases
have been separate for more than six months and they are very different.
Plenty commits from several of us have touched 30 or 40 files at a time.
Dennis Byrne
On 4/18/07, Martin
Ok - first for merging:
I'll try to do it, but will refrain from doing so if it gets too hard.
We'll see if it works or if it doesn't.
second for branches/tags/trunk renaming:
I think that Manfred's suggestion has merits. We can go with this.
regards,
Martin
On 4/18/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOBAGO-357?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12489736
]
Guido Dubois commented on TOBAGO-357:
-
This happens only in IE, in Firefox it works accurate...
+1 non-binding
Gary
-- Original message --
From: Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi *,
this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
Steps in doing this:
- branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
- merge down the 1.2 branch to current
+1 for Manfreds suggestion.
2007/4/18, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes.
+1 for a switch
But let's discuss the how first.
Just had a look at the tomcat repo and I like the structure they use.
Main issue is that they do not name their trunk folder trunk but
rather give it a name
Manfred's idea sounds good to me. I especially appreciate that it
will cause minimal disruption.
Best wishes,
Paul
On Apr 18, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Manfred Geiler wrote:
Yes.
+1 for a switch
But let's discuss the how first.
Just had a look at the tomcat repo and I like the structure they
Martin,
How complete is the work on 1.2?
~~~
Kito D. Mann ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces
Kito,
Here are the current unassigned issues as per Martin Haimberger's report to
the list previously:
MYFACES-1563 - Christoph will do that.
MYFACES-1255 - Crosschecked with RI - Only javadoc
MYFACES-1264 - Christoph will do that.
MYFACES-1253 - Crosschecked with RI - Only javadoc and
based on the TCK rules, we can only say, MyFaces hasn't passed it yet.
On 4/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin,
How complete is the work on 1.2?
~~~
Kito D. Mann ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Author, JavaServer Faces in
Hey Martin,
any updates here ?
(any patches that are still sitting in jira ?)
-M
On 4/6/07, Martin Haimberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi *,
Nice greatings from Christoph Ebner and me. Now a short overview of
the JSF 1.2 implementation status. We looked over the unassigned
issues:
generated h.tld doesn't conform to schema
-
Key: MYFACES-1587
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1587
Project: MyFaces Core
Issue Type: Bug
Components: JSR-252
Affects
Will there be a clear process in place for those who are not using 1.2
yet to check and out and fix 1.1 issues? There's 80+ issues still
open.
My initial reaction was -1, but I'm tending more toward +1 now, so
long as 1.1 development can continue fairly easily. I'm hoping to be
able to switch
Manfred addressed my concerns that I just posted on the other thread.
+1
On 4/18/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manfred's idea sounds good to me. I especially appreciate that it
will cause minimal disruption.
Best wishes,
Paul
On Apr 18, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Manfred Geiler wrote:
+1 for making 1.2 current.
+1 for Manfred's structure.
Once things have settled down (after Martin's attempted/successful merge),
I'm going to do another source code audit to ensure the licensing is all
compliant.
On 4/18/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manfred's idea sounds good to
Thanks. I just want to make sure I have my story correct - I'm often
training people who are using MyFaces and asking about 1.2 J.
~~~
Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://www.JSFCentral.com
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1574?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Paul McMahan resolved MYFACES-1574.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
Not sure when/how this was fixed
On 4/18/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Users looking at MyFaces Products do not have one place that lists the
products and their supported environments. Below is a example of what I
would expect.
...
I suspect this need to be on the MyFaces site.
Well... then... add it. :)
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1350?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12489851
]
Tiago Rinck Caveden commented on MYFACES-1350:
--
We also noticed that in our project here. It's
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1350?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12489854
]
Mike Kienenberger commented on MYFACES-1350:
Submit the fix in the form of a unified diff patch, and
thanks for voting.
We got 13 +1 (12 binding)
I'll follow up w/ a vote on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the Trinidad graduation.
-Matthias
On 4/17/07, Grant Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 4/17/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
2007/4/17, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL
managed beans are not resolved when scope is none
---
Key: MYFACES-1588
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1588
Project: MyFaces Core
Issue Type: Bug
Components:
Just wanted to invite some peer review for this change I just
committed for MYFACES-1588. The problem was that managed beans in
scope none weren't accessible via the resolver. The change I made
passes the test cases but there might be a more elegant way to
implement it.
Also, I have an
I havea added an small matrix to the following wiki page:
http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/CompatibilityMatrix
if any body is sure about any combination he/she may edit it till the jira
issue is solved.
regards
On 4/18/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/18/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL
I don't think anyone has run the cactus tests in about six months. They
aren't a part of the CI loop either.
Dennis Byrne
On 4/18/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wanted to invite some peer review for this change I just
committed for MYFACES-1588. The problem was that managed
right,
I think they used to be Bill's sandbox ;)
-M
On 4/18/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think anyone has run the cactus tests in about six months. They
aren't a part of the CI loop either.
Dennis Byrne
On 4/18/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wanted to
Hi Paul,
if you do the first change (introduce a scope where put does nothing),
I don't see why the second one needs to be done - putting will do
nothing, so you don't need the extra-check for none, right?
regards,
Martin
On 4/18/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wanted to
I have updated the compatibility pages on the MyFaces website. The matrix has
also been removed from the wiki page, so the data is in one place.
Paul Spencer
Arash Rajaeeyan wrote:
I havea added an small matrix to the following wiki page:
http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/CompatibilityMatrix
if
43 matches
Mail list logo
