On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Erin Noe-Payne > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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... >> > > I will do this today > Finally updated. Anyone check out functionality on the trunk? > > Also, I found a problem in the requirejs branch. Apparently, the shindig > javascript is being pulled from the same host as the rave instance and not > the shindig host. This means when I deploy Shindig to a different host, > any OpenSocial gadget fails to render. > > > >> >> 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 >> >> > >> > > > >>> >> >> > >> >> >> > >
