On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 14:42 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
Repeating this vote call because the last one got a bit lost in
getting the site generation right, but I don't think an RC2 is
required just for that.
-
I've prepared a release for FileUpload;
+1 from me.
Niall
On 6/3/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Repeating this vote call because the last one got a bit lost in
getting the site generation right, but I don't think an RC2 is
required just for that.
-
I've prepared a release for FileUpload;
+1 from me.
On 6/5/06, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me.
Niall
On 6/3/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Repeating this vote call because the last one got a bit lost in
getting the site generation right, but I don't think an RC2 is
required just for that.
+1
Phil
On 6/5/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me.
On 6/5/06, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me.
Niall
On 6/3/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Repeating this vote call because the last one got a bit lost in
getting the site generation
On 6/3/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
I've prepared a release for FileUpload;
http://people.apache.org/~bayard/fileupload/
[X] +1, looks good.
[ ] -1, nope, something needs fixing.
snap/
-Rahul
-
To
On 6/2/06, Lukas Theussl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that at the moment of the release, lastRelease should
still mean the previous release but it doesn't. At that moment it
suddenly means that release and you get a really small changelog.
Well that's brilliant. I wonder if
On 6/2/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/2/06, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
maven.changelog.date=2005-12-24
That way you can put the proper release date back into the changes file.
Much better. I'll do so and replace the docs with a new docs directory.
Have done
On 6/3/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/2/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/2/06, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
maven.changelog.date=2005-12-24
That way you can put the proper release date back into the changes
file.
Much better. I'll do so and
Repeating this vote call because the last one got a bit lost in
getting the site generation right, but I don't think an RC2 is
required just for that.
-
I've prepared a release for FileUpload;
http://people.apache.org/~bayard/fileupload/
[ ] +1, looks good.
[ ] -1, nope,
On 6/3/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Repeating this vote call because the last one got a bit lost in
getting the site generation right, but I don't think an RC2 is
required just for that.
-
I've prepared a release for FileUpload;
On 5/28/06, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In version 1.9 of the changelog-plugin a new option was added that might
solve this problem. Add these lines to the project.properties file:
maven.changelog.date=lastRelease
maven.changelog.type=date
The plugin looks in the changes.xml file
On 6/2/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/28/06, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In version 1.9 of the changelog-plugin a new option was added that might
solve this problem. Add these lines to the project.properties file:
maven.changelog.date=lastRelease
On 6/2/06, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/2/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/28/06, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In version 1.9 of the changelog-plugin a new option was added that might
solve this problem. Add these lines to the project.properties
On 6/2/06, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/2/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/28/06, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In version 1.9 of the changelog-plugin a new option was added that
might
solve this problem. Add these lines to the project.properties
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On 6/2/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/28/06, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In version 1.9 of the changelog-plugin a new option was added that
might
solve this problem. Add these lines to the project.properties file:
Is this a good time to check the RC? Unclear (to me) whether the
changelog discussion is a non-maskable interrupt.
-Rahul
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To me this is just window dressing and it's just irritating that it
means an SVN change. I'm not inclined to make a new RC just for the
changelog tweaks and so - yes, please have a look at the RC :)
Hen
On 6/2/06, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a good time to check the RC?
On 6/2/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/2/06, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/2/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/28/06, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In version 1.9 of the changelog-plugin a new option was added that
might
solve
On 6/2/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/2/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/2/06, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/2/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/28/06, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In version 1.9 of the
The problem is that at the moment of the release, lastRelease should
still mean the previous release but it doesn't. At that moment it
suddenly means that release and you get a really small changelog.
Well that's brilliant. I wonder if anyone can come up with a use case for
that
Henri Yandell wrote:
I pondered it for a while. The tag is of value - it's so we can start
a branch if trunk suddenly becomes untenable. My biggest concern with
Simon's reason was that it encourages read-write tags if we take it
fully.
Ideally we would copy the rc tag to the release tag, modify
On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 19:05 +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
I pondered it for a while. The tag is of value - it's so we can start
a branch if trunk suddenly becomes untenable. My biggest concern with
Simon's reason was that it encourages read-write tags if we take it
On 6/1/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 19:05 +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
I pondered it for a while. The tag is of value - it's so we can start
a branch if trunk suddenly becomes untenable. My biggest concern with
Simon's
On 6/1/06, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
The purpose being trying to avoid tag clutter in the tags directory?
Lets stick to a tag naming convention and let the sleeping dogs die?
snap/
And s/die/lie/ as well ;-)
-Rahul
-Rahul
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 23:43 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:35 +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Simon Kitching wrote:
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 00:03 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
[I haven't created an SVN tag for the RC1. Is there any particular
reason the release info
I pondered it for a while. The tag is of value - it's so we can start
a branch if trunk suddenly becomes untenable. My biggest concern with
Simon's reason was that it encourages read-write tags if we take it
fully.
Ideally we would copy the rc tag to the release tag, modify the rc
bits to the
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 00:03 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
[I haven't created an SVN tag for the RC1. Is there any particular
reason the release info says to create a tag?]
Well, in a busier project there is the danger that others may make
commits to the trunk while the RC is still being voted on.
Simon Kitching wrote:
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 00:03 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
[I haven't created an SVN tag for the RC1. Is there any particular
reason the release info says to create a tag?]
Making a tag in subversion has exactly the same price as checking in one
new file, ie is trivial. I
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:35 +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Simon Kitching wrote:
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 00:03 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
[I haven't created an SVN tag for the RC1. Is there any particular
reason the release info says to create a tag?]
Making a tag in subversion has exactly
I've prepared a release for FileUpload;
http://people.apache.org/~bayard/fileupload/
[ ] +1, looks good.
[ ] -1, nope, something needs fixing.
Will keep the vote open until Thursday (given that Monday is a holiday
for many).
[I haven't created an SVN tag for the RC1. Is there any particular
+1 from me.
All looks good to me - builds fine from the source distro and I tried
the jar in my webapp with no problems (and saw the lowercase filenames
bug fixed).
Niall
P.S. Henri are you going to vote?
On 5/28/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've prepared a release for
Sorry, habit.
+1
I remember Martin having pain with changelogs and things last time, so
if you or Martin remember what they were exactly that would be a good
thing to check. I couldn't see any obvious issues looking at the
report.
Hen
On 5/28/06, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 5/28/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, habit.
+1
I remember Martin having pain with changelogs and things last time, so
if you or Martin remember what they were exactly that would be a good
thing to check. I couldn't see any obvious issues looking at the
report.
The
On 5/28/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/28/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, habit.
+1
I remember Martin having pain with changelogs and things last time, so
if you or Martin remember what they were exactly that would be a good
thing to check. I couldn't
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 5/28/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, habit.
+1
I remember Martin having pain with changelogs and things last time, so
if you or Martin remember what they were exactly that would be a good
thing to check. I couldn't see any obvious issues looking at
35 matches
Mail list logo
