In the test matrix, I notice that we cite Action 1.3.0. Once there is an Action 1.3.0 GA, would then intention be to move the Scripting dependency forward?
My one suggestion would be to use SCRIPTING_1_0_0 as the build tag, to be in line with the Shale release plan. Otherwise, +1 on the plan. On the subject of tagging, as to the Action Framework plan, we might want to issue a tag for each subproject, so that there is an ACTION_1_3_0 tag, EXTRAS_1_3_0 tag, and so forth. Once we get past the initial Action Library distribution, I'm hoping (against hope) that we can release the subprojects individually. -Ted. On 11/28/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/26/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is only issue to be resolved before the release - its name. > > Otherwise, I feel it is in good shape to see at least a beta release. > > > > * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsBsfRelease100 > > > > At this time, I would ask the PMC, committers, and other interested > > parties to review the plan and the state of the repository. Please > > indicate your opinion on the plan in the usual style: +1, +0, or -1, > > along with any appropriate comments. > > Plan looks fine to me - except I changed the dependency to Struts 1.2.8. > > Niall > > > Note this this is not a vote on the quality of the intended release, > > but on the release plan. > > > > Given a positive result, it would be our intention to roll the release > > on late next week, assuming no major issues are raised in the meantime. > > > > Don > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- HTH, Ted. http://www.husted.com/poe/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
