On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:46:10 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. >
Excellent! I will roll it today. BTW, I saw that you checked in a fix for #31642, but it still shows as open in Bugzilla. -- Martin Cooper > -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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
