Re: [VOTE] Release Velocity 1.5 (again, this time for real. :-) )

2007-01-29 Thread apache
+1 from me! :) Christoph Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > Due to a misunderstanding in the vote procedure, we actually have to > repeat the release vote, because we should vote only on really rolled > releases. > > The candidate for the Apache Velocity 1.5 release is available from > http://peop

Re: [VOTE] Release Velocity 1.5 (again, this time for real. :-) )

2007-01-29 Thread Nathan Bubna
+1 On 1/28/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Due to a misunderstanding in the vote procedure, we actually have to repeat the release vote, because we should vote only on really rolled releases. The candidate for the Apache Velocity 1.5 release is available from http://people

Re: svn commit: r500648 - /velocity/engine/branches/Velocity_1.5_BRANCH/

2007-01-29 Thread Nathan Bubna
I believe the 1.6 was a typo. He was just suggesting that velocity/engine/branches/Velocity_1.5_BRANCH might be simply renamed velocity/engine/branches/1.5 so that "velocity" and "branch" aren't repeated in the path. :) On 1/29/07, Henning P. Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Geir

[ANNOUNCE] VelocityTools 1.3 Release Candidate 1

2007-01-29 Thread Nathan Bubna
The Apache Velocity project is pleased to announce the first release candidate for VelocityTools 1.3. You may download this release from: http://velocity.apache.org/download.cgi Significant changes since VelocityTools 1.2 are: - New tools: ContextTool for accessing context data, ResourceTool

Re: svn commit: r500648 - /velocity/engine/branches/Velocity_1.5_BRANCH/

2007-01-29 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Jan 29, 2007, at 8:09 PM, Nathan Bubna wrote: I believe the 1.6 was a typo. He was just suggesting that velocity/engine/branches/Velocity_1.5_BRANCH might be simply renamed velocity/engine/branches/1.5 so that "velocity" and "branch" aren't repeated in the path. :) yep - thanks for c

Re: where are the Board reports?

2007-01-29 Thread Will Glass-Husain
Hi Henning, Thanks! That sounds good- I agree. I suggest the routine be to move the report to the web site once submitted and remove from the Wiki. We can leave a place holder, see for instance: http://wiki.apache.org/velocity/BoardReport-January2007 But (since you're the one writing most of

Re: svn commit: r500648 - /velocity/engine/branches/Velocity_1.5_BRANCH/

2007-01-29 Thread Nathan Bubna
On 1/29/07, Henning P. Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Nathan Bubna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Well, all other branches are also named "VEL__BRANCH" (yes, I know that comes semi-automatically from CVS). I wanted to keep in tune. I actually didn't think much about it. >I believe the

Re: readme docs

2007-01-29 Thread Will Glass-Husain
Hi Henning, Ok, that makes sense. We didn't catch this till the vote started, so it's too late unless we want to delay till March. All I'm really worried about is the existing users missing the JDOM and commons-collection upgrade. I'm expecting that most users will just download the new jar, d

[Velocity Wiki] Update of "BoardReport-February2007" by HenningSchmiedehausen

2007-01-29 Thread Apache Wiki
Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Velocity Wiki" for change notification. The following page has been changed by HenningSchmiedehausen: http://wiki.apache.org/velocity/BoardReport-February2007

Automatic Site rebuild

2007-01-29 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
Hi, quick idea: As we will not get the zone on time and I will leave at least my mail server running and connected to the internet, I could set up a "once daily / twice daily" build on that machine. Downside to it is, that if I get lost in the Outback and it runs amok, you might not be able to sto

Re: Automatic Site rebuild

2007-01-29 Thread Nathan Bubna
I'd rather not leave something running that is out of our control for a month unless there is very clear need for it, which i don't see at this point. As long as Will's concerns are addressed in the announcement emails and news blurb on the web site, we should be fine until you get back. Besides

Re: readme docs

2007-01-29 Thread Claude Brisson
IMHO, taking into account a constructive remark about a change in the readme file should not interrupt the vote nor the release process. This is voluntariate time we are spoiling otherwise. The vote is in itself a good moment to react about the state of the upcoming release - it'd be rather strang

Re: Automatic Site rebuild

2007-01-29 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
can't other people build the docs? On Jan 29, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: Hi, quick idea: As we will not get the zone on time and I will leave at least my mail server running and connected to the internet, I could set up a "once daily / twice daily" build on that machi

Re: Velocity Debugger

2007-01-29 Thread bguedes
Hi Will, Well in having a debugger, I was thinking in a debugger like the Pnuts one !!! For having, per example, a eclipse debugger to stepping in a velocity template ... Well, it seems to me that for having a debugging mecanism, we have to modify the render() methods of SimpleNode class and th

Re: Velocity Debugger

2007-01-29 Thread Will Glass-Husain
Sure, that might be interesting to see. But aren't templates usually simple enough that a debugger is overkill? Having said that, if you wanted to work on this, we'd welcome a link to it or a contribution on the Wiki. best, WILL On 1/29/07, bguedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Will, Well i