putting Trinidad in the subject because I forgot to originally.
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
next is "testing" and prepare a release candidate.
by end of next week (if all agree) I can provide a 124 RC
so, we have some time to test. If we need more time, no
big deal in waiting some more days :-)
-M
On Nov 15, 2007 12:48 PM, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My vote is still to make 1.2 the trunk, and not have two trunks.
By the way, I created 1.2.4-branch, and did the merge and did a quick
test by following Adam's directions on the wiki page. Matthias, what is
the next step in the process?
http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/TrinidadCreating12Branches
Thanks,
Jeanne
Andrew Robinson wrote:
+1
Getting the ball rolling :)
On 11/15/07, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Vote:
Creation of https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/
Justification:
Once again trinidad lacking a trunk for 1.2 is giving me heartburn.
I have been making changes to 1.0.5 and to be nice, I wanted to put
them into 1.2 as well, but of course there is no home for 1.2.5 yet.
Unlike the last time this was brought up, we now have an existing
example as an argument to use as a standard:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk_1.2.x/
If it is good enough for core, should it not also be good enough for trinidad?
Since "https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk/"; would
remain untouched, this should remove any debates over JSF not being
supported.
Benefits:
1) 1.2 snapshots possible with continuum
2) 1.2 is kept up to date
3) easier merge during 1.2 release time and hopefully as a result a
more stable product
-Andrew
