-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 As this is a "one for, one against" (as no one else has spoken up), I'll just put it up on my area on people - no problem doing that. I'll also look at mavenizing the builds, although I'm somewhat concerned that it won't be a walk in the park getting all the component references in there. This won't fix anyone wanting to build an old release, but at least having a snapshot somewhere on apache is better than saying "can't do it anymore unless you already have it".
Here's hoping I can leverage the work Howard's done in Mavenizing 5.x, and the component reference building work done by Norbert [This won't handle 'examples', but hopefully it'll be available for use] Are there any objections to a move to Maven 2 at this time (schedule for inclusion in 3.1/4.1 - not immediately) for the 3.x and 4.x threads? If not, I'll start with branching and go from there. Howard: Are there any 'gotchas' that you ran across that I should be aware of? Or was your 5.x work so completely different that it isn't comparable? FYI - My plan will end up with: tapestry-site/ tapestry-4/ tapestry-3/ with tapestry-site/ being the 'parent' (if I understand maven terminology correctly). The goal being to be able to build 3 and site for a 3 release, or 4 and site for a 4 release thereby keeping the two 'code' branches separate at build/release time. Question about 'site': Assuming there are no objections and I go ahead with this, should I fit the site to its current look? Is the design of http://people.apache.org/~bwallace/tapsite acceptable? Are there alternatives other than these two options? (If I'm going to do it, I'd love to do it the way it's going to end up instead of treading back over to convert to a new design for TLP) As usual, thoughts/comments/questions welcome... Brian Brian K. Wallace wrote: > I completely agree that we shouldn't depend on a snapshot version - the > problem is... We already do. That's the problem. If anyone tries to > build what we have now, they must use the snapshot version. The problem > with the "latest" forrest is either a) the 'latest' is still a snapshot, > but now uses forrestbot and a different cocoon producing errors > througout the build or b) 0.7 which dies due to cocoon versions. > > I'm not thinking about "building by us" (since I was apparently the only > one having issues building and they're now resolved), but for anyone > else wanting to get into the fray it would be impossible to find a > download off the forrest site that would work to build the current sites. > > Andreas Andreou wrote: >>> How about adding the zip in another server then...? >>> http://people.apache.org/~andyhot/support/ >>> >>> It's just that i don't like such artifacts within version control + >>> we shouldn't depend on a snapshot version. >>> What exactly were the issues with latest forrest? Are they difficult to fix? >>> Perhaps it's an opportunity to switch to maven then... >>> >>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEUNfPaCoPKRow/gARAr0ZAJ4+Oo9lk+1GmsKCYQPf8mznol6jUgCcCAFg 8CcbxdxYhJ2S1v4F+F0OvIc= =BfYq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
