On 12/15/06, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 15, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: >> ... also SHALE-211 [1]. I'm guessing we can close that one. Any >> objections? >> > <snip/> > > Resolve it, at worst it will get re-opened. Its shouldn't affect the > release anyway, IMO.
Sorry for disappearing ... our storm last night walloped Portland pretty hard (at one point 300k folks without power, including me for about 9 hours). Re: SHALE-61 ... the early work on back buttons got pretty much obsoleted by the rearchitected dialog manager support. I'm going to spend some time this weekend seeing if I am satisfied with the current state of the world -- as long as we don't completely break the dialog paradigm if the user accidentally uses a back button, I'll likely be ok with releasing even if our support is not robust. Re: you guys tag teaming on RM for Shale ... +1! :-). The wiki has a bunch of notes (mostly from Wendy) that I basically followed last time. A couple of things to watch out for: * The shale-master pom should be upversioned and released separately first, so we don't have to depend on a snapshot version of it * The parent pom has maven-javadoc-plugin and maven-source-plugin commented out for quicker development builds ... we'll want them for a release build. * There's a bunch of other commented out cruft that we might as well get rid of too. * The details of how we can stage the actual bits to be voted on are likely to be slightly different ... but the key principle is that we want to be able to examine the actual bits being proposed (i.e. with a 1.0.4 version number, not an RC suffix) for the actual vote. Rahul's getting used to this on Commons releases :-). * Don't forget to tag the repository After the release, I'm also suggesting that we hold off on major changes to the repository until we talk about my earlier proposal to branch at this point and start working on 1.1 in the trunk, giving us the ability to do bugfix and/or security releases to the 1.0 branch without polluting it with new features. With SVN its easy to change our minds about whether the tag is under "tags" or "branches", but I'd like to see us formalize that decision before getting active again. Done :-)
Greg
Craig
