Il giorno 19/feb/2013, alle ore 12.56, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
> 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, Agree with Francesco. I think we can avoid the branch. > > 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/ >
