I'm running the new unit test now - fix looks good. I'll commit in a minute and re-post when I've merged into the branch.
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > Pushed the cart back to the top of the hill. > > Kalle > > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >> No worries - merging is uber easy in Idea ;) Thanks for doing the rollback! >> >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Kalle Korhonen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
