Craig McClanahan wrote:
However, I would be unhappy with
all of us other committers if we stopped testing 1.3.4 at all, until
1.3.5became available, and we surface yet another two line change next
week.
This is exactly why I think this release process, or least least the
Struts PMC implementatio
On 5/13/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/13/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/13/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would prefer that we resolve the DTD issue before marking a
> > distribution "ready for primetime".
> I agree ... and vote for bet
On 5/13/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/12/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks ... I meant to do that, but got distracted by preparations for a
demo
> I'm going to do in the Tuesday keynote next week. It'll be a fun one
...
> you'll want to make sure you se
On 5/12/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks ... I meant to do that, but got distracted by preparations for a demo
I'm going to do in the Tuesday keynote next week. It'll be a fun one ...
you'll want to make sure you see it :-)
Is this during the 8:30-10:30 general session?
On 5/13/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/13/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/13/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would prefer that we resolve the DTD issue before marking a
> > distribution "ready for primetime".
> I agree ... and vote for bet
On 5/13/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/13/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would prefer that we resolve the DTD issue before marking a
> distribution "ready for primetime".
I agree ... and vote for beta as well.
But we should spend some more time testing to
I am uneasy with the way that Struts Scripting and Struts Tiles
is being released under the 1.3.4 moniker. It doesn't make any
sense to me. The reason I say this is because they are, in a kind
of way, a different product.
Tiles is 1.1 despite the new 1.3.4 name. It is not in its 3rd
version, eve
On 5/7/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Struts Action Framework 1.3.3 Test Build is available to evaluate
for release quality.
The release plan is available on the wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsActionRelease133
The test build, including signatures and checksums, has
I recommend we withdrawl the availablity of 1.3.4 from
the download servers. Because this problem affects infrastructure,
I do not believe it should remain as a version to be downloaded.
Sometimes a distribution should just be killed off completely.
--- Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
On 5/13/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ ] Alpha
> [X] Beta
> [ ] General Availability (GA)
I would prefer that we resolve the DTD issue before marking a
distribution "ready for primetime".
I agree ... and vote for beta as well
On 5/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Struts Action Framework 1.3.4 Test Build is available to evaluate
for release quality.
The release plan is available on the wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsActionRelease134
The test build, including checksums and signatures, has
On 5/13/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do we need a new
> version (1.3.5) just for this?
Unfortunately, yes. It's the only reliable way.
It also would not be any more work that "hacking" the 1.3.4 build.
We'd have to do all the same things either way. Once the DTD issue is
reso
On 5/13/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know it is against our best practices, but can you just fix
1.3.4 with the correct DTD and then retag it?
No. If we did that, (a) anyone who had run a Maven build against the
1.3.4that's up there now would still be using the "old"
1.3.4,
I know it is against our best practices, but can you just fix
1.3.4 with the correct DTD and then retag it? Do we need a new
version (1.3.5) just for this? I am okay either which way. -- Paul
--- Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
On 5/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ ] Alpha
[X] Beta
[ ] General Availability (GA)
I would prefer that we resolve the DTD issue before marking a
distribution "ready for primetime".
-Ted.
-
To unsubscribe, e-m
On 5/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Once you have had a chance to review this test build, please respond
with a vote on its quality:
[ ] Alpha
[X] Beta
[ ] General Availability (GA)
Sorry for the late response - I've been at The Ajax Experience conference
for the last couple o
On 5/7/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/7/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd prefer site, since it keeps the focus on the deliverables.
I agree. After thinking about it for a while I couldn't really come
up with a justification for 'all'. If it's important enough
On 5/11/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> To summarise then my vote is beta because I believe I think we're
> introducing an uncessaey PITA for users upgrading and it will increase
> questions on the user list and put additional load on the Apache
> Servers.
I ab
Is there any public Java One plans?
If not, I am going to the Resin get together.
.V
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Craig,
I found also a similiar problem with the tag. I will open a
now issue about them two.
Alonso
2006/5/12, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 5/12/06, A. Alonso Dominguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I think that there is a bug in the implementation of the "
> or
20 matches
Mail list logo
