done, trunk -> wicket
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 17:14, Johan Compagner <[email protected]> wrote: > there is no such file with the extention .warplease ;) > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 17:12, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> wrote: >> And the same for >> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Apache%20Wicket%201.5.x/ws/trunk/wicket-examples/target/wicket-examples.warplease >> :-) >> >> Maybe we can rename http://wicketstuff.org/wicket/ to >> http://wicketstuff.org/wicket15/ <http://wicketstuff.org/wicket/> ? >> >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Johan Compagner <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> ok if that is stable then thats fine >>> i updated the copywicket14.sh file: >>> >>> wget -Owicket14.war >>> ' >>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Apache%20Wicket%201.4.x/ws/wicket-1.4.x/wicket-examples/target/wicket-examples.war >>> ' >>> >>> and did run it so you should have the latest now. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 16:55, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > Here is a URL to latest build at Hudson: >>> > >>> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Apache%20Wicket%201.4.x/ws/wicket-1.4.x/wicket-examples/target/wicket-examples.war >>> > I think this is a stable URL so we can use it. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Johan Compagner <[email protected] >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> >> i see that teamcity is gone now, and we use hudson, but that doesnt >>> >> build wicket-examples >>> >> So the easy copy file that i have doesnt work anymore.. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 15:09, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Hi, >>> >> > >>> >> > I would like to ask wicketstuff.org maintainers to update the >>> examples >>> >> > deployed at this machine to latest 1.4.10 and 1.5-M1 versions. >>> >> > Recently we had a ticket about broken 1.4 examples but everything was >>> >> fine >>> >> > in the latest snapshot (running the examples locally). Do you think it >>> is >>> >> a >>> >> > good idea to run the examples in DEVELOPMENT mode so we and the users >>> can >>> >> > see the problem in the browser instead of asking for logs ? >>> >> > >>> >> > martin-g >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >
