I fixed that. On 10/22/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Manfred, I seemed to have lost the ability to assign issue. :( It > looks like I can still do that with MyFaces issues, but not on the > PORTLETBRIDGE project. > > Scott > > Manfred Geiler wrote: > > Done. > > Scott, could you please doublecheck the new project with name > > "PORTLETBRIDGE". > > Hope you had not already assigned Components to issues because they > > seem to be lost. > > FYI: I also had to manually assign "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT" as "affected > > version" to all issues, hope that is ok. > > > > --Manfred > > > > > > On 10/19/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Well there you go. PortletBridge has my vote. > >> > >> Mike Kienenberger wrote: > >> > >>> PORTLETBRIDGE is shorter than > >>> GERONIMODEVTOOLS, so I think we're good with that :-) > >>> > >>> > >>> On 10/18/07, Michael Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> PortletBridge would be great as long as we can use that many characters. > >>>> > >>>> If folks prefer a codename I offer "Ponte". > >>>> > >>>> Ponte means bridge in Italian. > >>>> -Mike- > >>>> > >>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Hmm. +1 to PortletBridge. It's the closest we have to what the > >>>>> subproject is likely to be named. > >>>>> > >>>>> Scott > >>>>> > >>>>> Mike Kienenberger wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Either a codename or PortletBridge would make the most sense to me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/18/07, Michael Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Any chance we can keep it simple/straightforward -- the other Keys > >>>>>>> seem to > >>>>>>> do this ... like: > >>>>>>> Portlet Bridge > >>>>>>> Bridge > >>>>>>> Portlet > >>>>>>> PltBridge > >>>>>>> PBridge > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Mike- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Manfred Geiler wrote: > >>>>>>> Done. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> BTW, I remember a discussion about the Jira key "JSR301". Reason for > >>>>>>> the discussion was that it's no ideal name, because there might be a > >>>>>>> time after jsr 301... > >>>>>>> Well, renaming a Jira key is not possible. > >>>>>>> What I could do is create a knew Jira project and bulk move all > >>>>>>> issues. > >>>>>>> But first we would have to find a proper key. > >>>>>>> MFPB for MyFaces portlet bridge? > >>>>>>> or JSFPB? > >>>>>>> Other suggestions? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Manfred > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 10/18/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sure Manfred. If you would. I can then go and assign the existing > >>>>>>> Jira > >>>>>>> tickets in the appropriate categories. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> BTW, thanks sooo much for all your help in this... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Scott > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Manfred Geiler wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So, there would be 4 new Jira "components" for the bridge: > >>>>>>> api > >>>>>>> impl > >>>>>>> documentation > >>>>>>> testing > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> right? > >>>>>>> should I add them right now? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Manfred > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 10/18/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hey guys, assuming there are not objections from incubator, I'm doing > >>>>>>> what I can to try to get the bridge project ready so we can hit the > >>>>>>> ground running. I was wondering what you guys thought about adding a > >>>>>>> couple of components to the jsr-301 jira project. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> First off, I would like to add impl and api components to this > >>>>>>> project. > >>>>>>> As an R.I., the api for this project will be largely dictated by the > >>>>>>> spec. Therefore bugs filed against the API should be handled with more > >>>>>>> scrutiny then changes to impl need to be. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Secondly, I would like to see a separate component for documentation > >>>>>>> as > >>>>>>> I will expect there will be a lot added here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Third, it MIGHT be nice to add a "testing" component. I know that > >>>>>>> testing tasks could be included in the api and impl components, but > >>>>>>> part > >>>>>>> of the requirements for the testing suite for this project should be > >>>>>>> able ensuring compliance with the TCK. As an R.I., I know I personally > >>>>>>> would want to see these tests be as accurate as possible to ensure > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>>> the R.I. correctly implements the JSR-301 specification. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What do you guys think? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>> Scott > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
-- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
