On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, I can fix it rather quickly I think.  Can you do the rollback
> while I fix it and write the test case? Also, I'm assuming I can add
> the fix to trunk?

Yeah, I'll rollback and drop the staged release. You can fix it in the
trunk, but the fix needs to be merged to the shiro-root-0.0.x branch
(hey you asked for it :)

Kalle


> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Kalle Korhonen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Noticed, but didn't really read through until now and I optimistically
>> thought it was more esoteric than it seems it is. Undoubtedly it's an
>> issue with native sessions only but that's one of the strong points
>> for Shiro. I assume you are already looking into it? Should be easy to
>> create a test case for it. It's a simple matter to rollback the
>> release now that we've tested the process works.
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>>> Sure, I'd love to!  But did you see this?
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-167
>>>
>>> httpServletRequest.getSession().getServletContext() always returning
>>> null doesn't sound great.  Shouldn't we fix it quickly and re-try?
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Kalle Korhonen
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> How about that, the release worked on the first try. Guess I've
>>>> learned a thing or two about releasing with Maven along the way. Props
>>>> to Maven folks for super clear yet concise instructions.
>>>>
>>>> The staging repository is at
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheshiro-002/
>>>> The Maven site/documentation is at
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/shiro/static/1.0.0-incubating. This is the
>>>> final location for the site.
>>>>
>>>> Les, would you like to do the honors and send the official vote email
>>>> out? There's a sample template at
>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html. Since
>>>> it's our first release though maybe you want to add a bit more
>>>> description and maybe mention that since there were some last minute
>>>> package changes people should actually test the binaries before
>>>> voting, perhaps extend the voting time from minimum 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> Kalle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On that note, I think we should release 1.0.0. Current Maven
>>>>> versioning scheme works "best" with x.x.x numbering (see
>>>>> http://mojo.codehaus.org/versions-maven-plugin/version-rules.html).
>>>>> It'd also would make sensible to then reserve the incremental version
>>>>> (the last component) for bug fixes and allow using minor versions for
>>>>> new (compatible) feature releases. In essence, after releasing 1.0.0,
>>>>> we'd prepare the trunk for development of 1.1.0 and create 1.0.x
>>>>> branch for bug fixes and continue feature development, bug fixes etc.
>>>>> in the trunk until we identify a feature set we don't want to or won't
>>>>> make it to the next release, at which time we'd pull a 1.1x branch and
>>>>> update the trunk for development of 1.2.x (or even 2.0.x).
>>>>>
>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree that we're long
>>>>>> overdue for our first release ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to take a crack
>>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues that
>>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0.  When I'm done with that, I'd like to
>>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to speak-up if
>>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but I missed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what should concretely
>>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as possible from
>>>>>> now.  Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can finish all
>>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this, otherwise, I'll
>>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to