Ross Gardler wrote:
How do I 'set my java' to it? Install and adjust environment settings?
Which ones are required?
JAVA_HOME
Well, this isn't working for me. To be sure I also set a path to the
Java-directory and logged in again, but when I do a java -version I
still get 1.4.2.
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Well, this isn't working for me. To be sure I also set a path to the
Java-directory and logged in again, but when I do a java -version I
still get 1.4.2.
there is a java.exe in WINDOWS\system32 that is likely causing the problem
On Jue, 9 de Junio de 2005, 11:10, Ross Gardler dijo:
David Crossley wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Any comments on this proposal?
Yes i sent comments under another thread name:
required Java version
Would someone please follow up. It is a very important point.
I've switched on my lazy
Any comments on this proposal?
Ferdinand
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
- Set your Java version to be the lowest specified of our supported
versions.
Where is the definitive info on the supported versions? The FAQ says
we need Java 1.4 or better. Does that mean it has
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Any comments on this proposal?
Yes i sent comments under another thread name:
required Java version
Would someone please follow up. It is a very important point.
--David
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
- Set your Java version to be the lowest
David Crossley wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Any comments on this proposal?
Yes i sent comments under another thread name:
required Java version
Would someone please follow up. It is a very important point.
I've switched on my lazy consensus mode for this issue. In other words
I agree
Sorry, I completely missed that response in the flurry of postings.
David Crossley wrote:
I have similar concerns. Using 1.4.0 sounds very risky.
However we could not expect everyone to use the most recent 1.4.x
So would a compromise of 1.4.1 be the most sensible?
I disagree. For several
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Sorry, I completely missed that response in the flurry of postings.
David Crossley wrote:
I have similar concerns. Using 1.4.0 sounds very risky.
However we could not expect everyone to use the most recent 1.4.x
So would a compromise of 1.4.1 be the most sensible?
To make that clear before I argue any further:
I accept that there are at least two people in favor of using 1.4.1
and so we should do that of course.
But I'd still like to argue my case :-)
Ross Gardler wrote:
1. If we test against anything other than the most recent fix version
of
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Backwards compatibility obviously cannot mean that a version with bugs
(that might cause problems with Forrest) will not cause this problem
because the fix version (where that bug is fixed) is supposed to be
backward compatible.
It would only mean that this fixed
Ross Gardler wrote:
I would prefer to see us test on 1.4.0 but since I'm not doing the
release process I'm happy with 1.4.1 if it makes your lives easier (it
actually makes mine harder as I don't have 1.4.1, I have 1.4.0 and
1.4.2, but not 1.4.1).
I think that this is trivial. When I had
Ross Gardler wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
DISCLAIMER
I have never done a release so I'm only giving you my interpretation of
the document. Authorative answers will come from elsewhere if I have got
something wrong.
A bit of background might help. Jeff Turner did the releases up to
David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
...
- Create a new file, etc/RELEASE-NOTES-x.y.txt, where x.y is the version
currently being released. It is best to copy an earlier RELEASE-NOTES
file,
to keep a common layout.
In this file, provide a summary of changes,
David Crossley wrote:
Ross, are you able to explain what needs to happen with the plugins
at release-time. I mean do they all need to have -0.7 appended
to the names of the zip files?
Blast I forgot that entirely (again!). Yes we need two zipped versions,
a pluginname-0.7.zip and a
Ross Gardler wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
The new ability might assist, but we still need the RELEASE-NOTES-0.7.txt
file.
cd FORREST_HOME/site-author
forrest run
http://localhost:/releaseNotes_0.7-dev.txt
What's missing from this document, I'll fix it while
David Crossley wrote:
This time it sounds like Ferdinand is offering to help.
Yes, I'll try. The reason I didn't say so before asking the questions
was that I want to fully understand what I have to do before I commit
myself to doing it ...
That is great, because we need more people to
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
...
A first step would be to update the instructions before i start.
Anybody mind if I update them to show more details for people w/o that
background?
Mind, I hate doing those kinds of jobs, please be my guest. (note David
already did some
Following the developing discussion amongst you and having tried to do
a few of the things you mentioned, I'm feeling slightly overwhelmed by
the complexity of the task.
So looking at our ambitious time frame I'd like to take up David on
his offer
I reckon it would be better that i do the
David Crossley wrote:
- Set your Java version to be the lowest specified of our supported
versions.
Where is the definitive info on the supported versions? The FAQ says
we need Java 1.4 or better. Does that mean it has to be 1.4.0 or can
it be 1.4.x
1.4.0
Oooh, glad you asked that
Thanks for fixing some of the docs already, David.
Some questions remaining:
- Set your Java version to be the lowest specified of our supported versions.
e.g. J2SDK 1.4.0
See my ealier posting on this.
- Run 'build release-dist' to generate the distributions on a UNIX machine.
-
I have read the release process instructions and have a lot of
questions (I quote the whole file to preserve context).
Ferdinand
Forrest Release Process
This file documents the steps a release manager
21 matches
Mail list logo
