Yes, I ran through some standard regression testing. Thanks for updating docs, I'll try to put together the release today.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> >> > >> > > > >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>
