I just realized my clock was off yesterday, so my posts might appear out of order. (Forward into the past!) Sorry for the inconvenience.
Anyway, it looks to me like 1.2.6 is ready to roll, if someone wants to do the deed. -Ted. On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:14:12 -0400, Ted Husted wrote: > As mentioned, we can always tag and roll additional releases from > the 1.2.x branch. It's just a question of how much we want to > cross-commit between 1.3.x and 1.2.x. > > Right now, I'd say cross-committing this patch is the lesser of the > two evils. > > When validator 1.1.4 goes GA, I'd personally commit to rolling > 1.2.7, especially if we also get a patch for #23127 too. > > -Ted. > > > On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:54:35 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> The issue is that Validator was missed out when message bundles >> was implemented in Struts - I'd prefer we wait for Validator >> 1.1.4 and fix #18169 and #21760 and that hole will then be >> plugged in the 1.2.x series. >> >> If we were carrying on in the 1.2.x series, then releasing 1.2.6 >> and leaving them till next time would be fine by me - but since >> we're moving on to a 1.3 branch IMO it would be a good idea to >> include this in the last 1.2 release. >> >> Theres been no -ve feedback from anyone on Validator 1.1.4 so >> hopefully it will be voted GA in the next couple of days - can we >> really not delay a week for the 1.2.6 version and include this >> stuff? >> >> Niall >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: >> Tuesday, June 01, 2004 11:52 PM >> Subject: Re: Release planning (was Re: Shale vs. Struts-Chain) >> >> >> If everything else is resolved, I don't think we need to wait on >> Validator 1.1.4. If it's ready when we are, fine. If not, #18169 >> does not seem like a "showstopper" issue to me, and we can finish >> implementing the feature in the 1.3.x series. >> >> I'm trying to resolve the issues not listed as "outstanding" on >> the release plan, which should put us in a position to roll >> 1.2.6. >> >> I would be in favor of immediately branching at 1.2.6, >> regardless, so we can start on 1.3.x. If there are any >> straggling issues with the 1.2.x build, I'd be happy to cross- >> commit between the 1.2.x and 1.3.x branches. We've let 1.2.x >> block 1.3.x long enough, and it's time to "move on to bigger and >> better things". >> >> We did tag and roll 1.2.5, it just didn't go anyplace, which is >> going to happen now and again. >> >> -Ted. >> >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:21:30 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote: >> >>>> Seams that Chain is only for Struts 1.2 ? >>>> or 1.3, which is based on Servlet2.2 >>>> >>> I believe that we reached consensus that it would be ok to move >>> Struts 1.3 to depend on Servlet 2.3. Work on Struts 1.3 is >>> blocked on the release of a GA 1.2.x Struts so as to minimize >>> any need to apply patches across both branches. >>> >>> Looking at http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease126, is >>> it true that we are just waiting for commons-validator 1.1.4 >>> to be marked "GA"? The other bugs all seem to be marked for >>> 1.3 except one which is underspecified. >>> >>> Should we somehow annotate this page: >>> http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsRelease125 to indicate that >>> there isn't going to be a 1.2.5 release? Or should we have a >>> vote on it even though 1.2.6 is brewing? >>> >>> Joe >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
