I can probably find time to test and perform the release this week. If we could update the docs at http://rave.apache.org/release-process.html to reflect the he release scripts we have available at https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/rave/release-management/ that would be helpful to me. I performed the last release but only sort of remember how to do it. Ha...
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> > Also, to your comments Sean - I assume you are referring to 0.22 and >> > 0.23-SNAPSHOT? >> > >> > In general I don't like the idea of worrying about pushing breaking >> > changes into the trunk because of people relying on snapshot. >> > Production systems shouldn't be depending on nightly builds, right? >> > >> >> Shouldn't & are are two different things. Do any of you who would like to >> spin a release have time to validate trunk today? If everything checks >> out, I am +1 for release and then merge this week. >> >> If trunk is not releasable though, I say lets delay a month and release >> with require js. >> > > If someone can do the release I'm definitely +1 for a release prior to > merge. There isn't much in there that is done but there are a couple good > bug fixes. > > Chris > >> >> >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <[email protected] >> > >> > wrote: >> > > Ok. Are we ready to release 0.22? I'm fine with release first, but I'd >> > like >> > > to get require into trunk relatively soon so we can take advantage of >> it, >> > > and also so that we can keep the require, angular branches and trunk >> all >> > > fairly in sync. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Monday, July 1, 2013, Sean Cooper wrote: >> > >> >> > >> +1 >> > >> >> > >> This will save anyone that is using 0.21 SNAPSHOT. Release 0.22 and >> > then >> > >> merge onto 0.22 SNAPSHOT >> > >> >> > >> -Sean >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jasha Joachimsthal >> > >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > It's been 2 months since the last release. Let's do a 0.22 release >> > first >> > >> > with the bug fixes and improvements. After the release merge the >> > require >> > >> > branch into trunk and document how to migrate existing >> installations. >> > >> > >> > >> > Jasha >> > >> > >> > >> > On 1 July 2013 16:38, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > IMO, latter; but, I would allow 72 hrs for lazy consensus review. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Other opinions? >> > >> > > >> > >> > > On Monday, July 1, 2013, Erin Noe-Payne wrote: >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > Hi All, >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > The require.js branch is nearing completion, and I expect it >> will >> > be >> > >> > > > ready to bring back into trunk within the next day or two. >> Should >> > >> > > > the >> > >> > > > merge be submitted as a patch through the review board, or >> should >> > I >> > >> > > > just go ahead with it when it is ready, and provide an 0.21 -> >> > 0.22 >> > >> > > > guide? >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Erin Noe-Payne >> > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > Hey all, just to be clear since Dan's patch created a bit of >> > >> > confusion >> > >> > > > > - I created a "require" branch for this task. Since this is a >> > >> > > > > pretty >> > >> > > > > broad change I felt we needed a branch to collaborate and >> > complete >> > >> > the >> > >> > > > > changes. I am expecting a number of patches to be submitted >> > >> > > > > against >> > >> > it >> > >> > > > > in the next couple weeks. >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Let me know if there are any concerns. >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Matt Franklin < >> > >> > > [email protected]> >> > >> > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Chris Geer >> > >> > > > >> <[email protected] >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Erin Noe-Payne < >> > >> > > > [email protected] >> > >> > > > >>> >wrote: >> > >> > > > >>> >> > >> > > > >>> > Specifically, the idea of require js is to take all >> > references >> > >> > off >> > >> > > of >> > >> > > > >>> > the global namespace and to build out and resolve a >> > dependency >> > >> > tree >> > >> > > > >>> > for your client side code. So if we made it optional, >> then >> > >> > someone >> > >> > > > >>> > who wanted to take advantage of the feature would need to >> > >> > > > >>> > overlay >> > >> > > any >> > >> > > > >>> > place where there is a reference to the global rave >> object. >> > >> > > > >>> > That >> > >> > > > >>> > includes jsps where there is a script block that uses >> > rave.*, >> > >> > > > >>> > and >> > >> > > > wrap >> > >> > > > >>> > that in a require block. You would also need to overlay >> the >> > >> > > > >>> > java >> > >> > > > class >> > >> > > > >>> > that inserts rave.registerWidget(...) onto the page and >> wrap >> > >> > those >> > >> > > in >> > >> > > > >>> > require blocks. Also any jsp that has an onclick="rave.*" >> > >> > > > >>> > event >> > >> > > > >>> > handler, those would need to be moved to jquery bindings >> and >> > >> > > wrapped >> > >> > > > >>> > in require blocks. Once you had that you would overlay the >> > >> > > > >>> > rave_script.js tag so that instead of link all the >> scripts, >> > >> > > > >>> > you >> > >> > > just >> > >> > > > >>> > reference require.js with a data-main attribute pointing >> to >> > >> > > > >>> > your >> > >> > > > >>> > bootstrapping script. (See >> > >> > > > >>> > http://requirejs.org/docs/start.html >> > >> > ). >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > >> > > > >>> > If instead we make a breaking change, then we would do all >> > of >> > >> > > > >>> > the >> > >> > > > >>> > above work on trunk. An implementer who wanted to go to >> 0.22 >> > >> > would >> > >> > > > >>> > then be responsible for updating their scripts to be >> written >> > >> > > > >>> > as >> > >> > AMD >> > >> > > > >>> > modules (http://requirejs.org/docs/api.html#define). The >> > >> > > > >>> > script >> > >> > is >> > >> > > > >>> >> > >>
