With the release 0.22 tagged, I will perform the merge of require into trunk in the next couple days.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Erin Noe-Payne <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>> >> > >> > > > >>> >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> >>> >>>
