-1
Javascript onException call missing exception argument, almost impossible to
track what when wrong:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-1873
Denis
On 18.4.2012, at 8:56, Dmitry Gusev wrote:
> Kalle, thanks for your reply.
>
> As I understood from Howard's report and release notes -
Igor Drobiazko: +1 (binding)
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> I've created and uploaded a release of Tapestry 5.3.3, ready to be
> voted upon.
>
> The source, binary, and javadoc downloads are uploaded to:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~hlship/tapestry-releases/
>
> and
Taha Hafeez: +1 (non-binding)
On Apr 18, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Igor Drobiazko wrote:
> Igor Drobiazko: +1 (binding)
Well, I wouldn't say I don't care. As Kalle already said, if this is a
blocker for you, you should draw committer's attention here on the list, if
you feel that your issue is forgotten.
BTW did I mention already that providing tests in a patch increases the
probability of the patch to be applied?
Just a bit of clarification here: Procedural votes like releases can't be
vetoed. It's up to the
release manager to decide.
Uli
On 18.04.2012 08:19, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
> Dmitry, I feel your pain but this doesn't seem to be a 5.3.3 specific
> issue. You really want to block 5.3.3 release becau
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 03:39:37 -0300, Massimo Lusetti
wrote:
I feel I'm a little bit overbooked now but I can see what I can do
during the weekend or the first days of the next week.
Anyone object or has any doubt about this move? Do everyone agree?
+1 from me.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueir
+1 I'm anxious to move to Git!
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 03:39:37 -0300, Massimo Lusetti
> wrote:
>
>> I feel I'm a little bit overbooked now but I can see what I can do
>> during the weekend or the first days of the next week.
>
Also, nothing prevents us from having a 5.3.4 as well I was quite
happy to let 5.3.3 accumulate more fixes until the bytecode bug
percolated up.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Ulrich Stärk wrote:
> Just a bit of clarification here: Procedural votes like releases can't be
> vetoed. It's up
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:12:23 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship
wrote:
Also, nothing prevents us from having a 5.3.4 as well I was quite
happy to let 5.3.3 accumulate more fixes until the bytecode bug
percolated up.
Talking about bytecode, what about copying the annotations from service
implem
