Makes sense. >From the development process, should I commit to a branch then?
Like for example: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/struts2/branches/STRUTS_3_X/ or, if we agree, to a 2.5 branch? Thanks On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Chris Pratt <thechrispr...@gmail.com> wrote: > That sounds like a better candidate for 2.5 or 3.0, since it would be a > breaking change. > (*Chris*) > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Christian Grobmeier > <grobme...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> while fixing a comment in org.apache.struts2.components.Set, I came >> across a TODO: >> >> TODO: set required=true when 'id' is dropped after 2.1 >> >> ContextBean does provide setId, but delegate to setVar with the TODO >> "remove after 2.1". >> >> Well, 2.1 is history :-) >> >> Does anybody mind if I would remove setId and fix the TODO in Set >> (which is saying, make var required)? >> >> Maybe there are other components which need "var" as required, >> hopefully all of them are marked with todo. I woul dtry to check them >> all. >> >> Cheers >> Christian >> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.grobmeier.de >> https://www.timeandbill.de >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org >> >> -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
