Gav... wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > > Gav... wrote: > > > > > > Ok, but the plugins when rebuilt will be done so with Java 1.5 , how > > > will that affect things? > > > > Ah good point. We should have done a deploy of all > > plugins that had Java code (only some do) before > > doing that change. > > > > To answer, i don't know what effect it will have. > > > > > It's been so long since some were updated that I guess they would > > need > > > testing on 0.8 release before deciding if they are still compatible > > or > > > not. > > > > This is part of our past problems. We don't deploy those > > plugins often enough and don't pay sufficent attention > > to their version numbers. > > > > Hmmm, i don't know what to do. > > Ok, what I was sort of suggesting before, was that we bump all > forrestversions of all > plugins to 0.9 (or 0.9-dev ?) and do ant deploy on them all. (not an ant > release which > can be done at our leisure later?). This will bring us up to date. > > Doing the above, will that remove all plugins from being available to 0.8 > users or not?
I presume that they will be stuck with whatever is currently deployed as "forrestVersion 0.8". > If not we're fine, if yes then perhaps we should do a final release of all > 0.8 plugins and do so from the versions of the plugins we have in the 0.8 tag > we did at > release time. I am visualising getting conflicts that cannot be resolved, because some plugins have been deployed since. Also new plugins have been added, so there would be conflicts in the "plugins descriptor" files. > Any changes after that will as above go into the 0.9 version. > > I realise you said we should only bump the forrestversion only if 0.9 > functionality is > introduced, but I'm suggesting this as a once off opportunity to catch up, > it would be > too time consuming to back and check every plugin at this stage, and being > so close > to a new 0.9 Forrest (core) release we really do need to catch up. I agree. > Afterwards, fine, > we try and keep up and do it properly. Lets hope so again. I hear this echo. > This is pre 1.0 stable after all and > folks > should be encouraged to upgrade, we can not guarantee backwards > compatability and we > don't have any policy of back-porting. People are probably clamouring to upgrade. > Another thing to mention here, the 'dispatcher' plugin we so want out of the > whiteboard, > impossible if we don't bring it up to date -- in terms of documentation it > is shocking, > still mentions of <forrest:views.../> all over the place as well as *.fv > config files > which are superseded now after the dispatcher rewrite 6 months ago. I'd love > to start > updating the documentation for the dispatcher plugin but I'm stuck because > we need > to deploy it first -- your mention of deploy-docs, I could start using that, > but not > until it's at a 0.9 version I don't think. I think that it is too late to deploy it. It does have warnings to developers. People who are using it should be developers using trunk. We probably should never have deployed this plugin. It was in such a state of flux, that it only made sense to be available to developers using trunk. -David
