I created the 203 branch during creating the core branch., I think I also included this error.
-Matthias On 7/31/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess there was no branch made for the shared project at the same time that the core branched? If so we need to make a branch now (retroactively) and make sure it does not include the problematic code. Then change the dependency in the core pom. Generaly when we say "master pom" we mean the artifact produced by myfaces/maven/master-pom. That should be left alone. As for snapshots, they can stay -SNAPSHOT while we do light testing. But then we should change them to final versions once these artifacts are released. Basically we can "release" the myfaces-shared artifact as soon as we test that this is all working. Sean On 7/31/06, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this means the scope of 1368 should be changed to 1.1.5 release, core 1.1.4 branch needs have the poms changed, and core 1.1.4 needs to be retested. > > Should "SNAPSHOT" be removed from the master pom ? > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/branches/1_1_4/pom.xml?view=markup > > Dennis Byrne > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Dennis Byrne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 03:01 PM > >To: 'MyFaces Development' > >Subject: Re: Core 1.1.4 > > > >http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/branches/1_1_4/impl/pom.xml?view=markup > > > >It's pointed to the snap shot. > > > > <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.shared</groupId> > > <artifactId>myfaces-shared-impl</artifactId> > > <version>2.0.3-SNAPSHOT</version> > > > >Dennis Byrne > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 02:32 PM > >>To: 'MyFaces Development' > >>Subject: Re: Core 1.1.4 > >> > >>Ok the classes mentioned in MYFACES-1368 don't seem to be in the 1.1.4 > >>branch. So something is wrong here. > >> > >>Sean > >> > >>On 7/31/06, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> >you mean Martin's commit? Or what? > >>> > >>> Yes, obviously it is nicer to have uniform configuration parameters, but I do not feel this should hold up a release. > >>> > >>> >We should have a unit test for each new commit ... during the complete > >>> >refactoring I am doing on Trinidad, I am *very*! happy to have such a > >>> >huge amount of test cases. That make my refactoring life very > >>> >comfortalbe! > >>> > >>> There was a time when I didn't feel this way. The spec means static requirements, so far less need for testing. > >>> > >>> But today core is a field of landmines. The relationship between cost and quality is exponential on every project, and we are definetly paying a lot these days in order to squeeze out the last 5% of defects in this piece of software. Four of five fixes result in another bug. > >>> > >>> Dennis Byrne > >>> > >>> >-Matthias > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> >> Dennis Byrne > >>> >> > >>> >> >-----Original Message----- > >>> >> >From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> >> >Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 01:23 PM > >>> >> >To: 'MyFaces Development' > >>> >> >Subject: Core 1.1.4 > >>> >> > > >>> >> >What's going on with this? Last I heard there was at least one major > >>> >> >bug? Can somebody summarize the status and likely timetable for > >>> >> >getting this out? This should be everyone's top MyFaces priority. If > >>> >> >you've got other personal stuff to do - fine - but this should be our > >>> >> >top priority otherwise. > >>> >> > > >>> >> >Sean > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >-- > >>> >Matthias Wessendorf > >>> > > >>> >further stuff: > >>> >blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > >>> >mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >
-- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
