On 19/02/2013 12:51, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
How about a new branch for the LDAP + DB bundles that I can backport fixes to?
In terms of the DB Connector first, trunk is at 2.1.5-SNAPSHOT. How about I
update trunk to 2.2-SNAPSHOT + create a new branch called "2.1.X" (with
version 2.1.5-SNAPSHOT) before the recent revisions were made? I will then
selectively merge various fixes. Any objections to this?
I thought we could avoid this branching if we are able to verify that
you can use "old" (e.g. compiled against ConnId 1.3.2) connectors with
"new" (e.g. 1.3.3-SNAPSHOT) framework,
Am I wrong?
Regards.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Fabio Martelli
<fabio.marte...@gmail.com>wrote:
Il giorno 19/feb/2013, alle ore 11.44, Colm O hEigeartaigh ha scritto:
Guys, I'd prefere to keep the 1.3.2 for Syncope 1.1.0.
Since we are expecting to release soon I'd like to be sure about the
reliability of the 1.1.0.
Why do you think 1.3.3 would be particularly unreliable? There have not
been many fixes made from what I can see.
I don't have strong objections to using 1.3.2 for Syncope 1.1, however I
would like if the fixes I've made make it into Syncope for 1.1. I will
backport the CSV fixes to the branch. How about a new branch for the
LDAP +
DB bundles that I can backport fixes to? In particular I would like to
have
LDAP-2, LDAP-5 and LDAP-6 available in Syncope 1.1.
OK Colm, probably we can do the following.
Since I'd like to maintain the possibility to switch from a newest
connector version to an old one I'd ask you to verify before the
possibility to run, for example, CsvDir 0.6.1-SNAPSHOT with the latest
framework version.
If I well remember this should be possible (the opposite is not possible
for sure). This would be sufficient to have my +1.
Best regards,
F.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Fabio Martelli
<fabio.marte...@gmail.com>wrote:
Il giorno 19/feb/2013, alle ore 11.28, Colm O hEigeartaigh ha scritto:
When using the CSVDir 0.7-SNAPSHOT we would be forced to use ConnId
1.3.3-SNAPSHOT instead of 1.3.2.
Is there any reason why we can't just do that on trunk anyway? I assume
we're going to release Syncope 1.1 with ConnId 1.3.3 anyway?
Guys, I'd prefere to keep the 1.3.2 for Syncope 1.1.0.
Since we are expecting to release soon I'd like to be sure about the
reliability of the 1.1.0.
Regards,
F.
Why not backporting your fix on 0.7-SNAPSHOT to 0.6.1-SNAPSHOT?
I will do.
Colm.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
ilgro...@apache.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2013 11:13, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
Hi all,
Following the query on the CSV SNAPSHOT in Syncope, just wondering
why
are
we including 0.6.1-SNAPSHOT on trunk instead of 0.7-SNAPSHOT? The
former
does not include the fixes I made recently (in particular the
properties
file is in the wrong package name, and so the correct property keys
are
not
displayed in Syncope).
When using the CSVDir 0.7-SNAPSHOT we would be forced to use ConnId
1.3.3-SNAPSHOT instead of 1.3.2.
Why not backporting your fix on 0.7-SNAPSHOT to 0.6.1-SNAPSHOT?
Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
