OK, branch https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.web/commits/pax-web-6.1.x
is ready - I started it again from current pax-web-6.0.x, so your Tomcat
changes are already there.

regards
Grzegorz Grzybek

2017-09-12 13:11 GMT+02:00 Grzegorz Grzybek <[email protected]>:

>
>
> 2017-09-12 12:53 GMT+02:00 Stephan Siano <[email protected]>:
>
>> Hi Gregorsz,
>>
>> I can also pick my changes into that branch (I had have already a local
>> change for this). I would not squash the commits too much (at least the
>> JIRA tasks that are in the history should be identifiable).
>>
>
> Thanks - I also prefer NOT to squash commits. Let me just merge/ff the
> branch to 6.1.x, ok?
>
> regards
> Grzegorz
>
>
>> Best regards
>> Stephan
>>
>> Am Dienstag, 12. September 2017 07:52:58 UTC+2 schrieb Grzegorz Grzybek:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Thanks for answer. I left the branch pax-web-6.1.x-proposal for a while
>>> to get answer: to squash commits or to not squash.
>>> I'll look again today (or tomorrow), write a doc about new Undertow
>>> configuration and look at merging PAXWEB-1075 and PAXWEB-1129.
>>>
>>> best regards
>>> Grzegorz Grzybek
>>>
>>>
>>> 2017-09-12 7:36 GMT+02:00 Stephan Siano <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I also think it is a good idea to have a pax-web 6.1.x release with
>>>> some updated references. I would also like to have the update to Tomcat
>>>> 8.5.20 in that branch (PAXWEB-1129) and I would also like to pick the
>>>> additional integration tests for Tomcat (PAXWEB-1075).
>>>>
>>>> What is the status of the pax-web-6.1.x-proposal branch? Should I merge
>>>> the tomcat changes there? For some reason I don't understand the jetty
>>>> integration tests fail in my local build from that branch (the tomcat und
>>>> undertow integration tests work).
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Stephan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am Montag, 4. September 2017 14:03:29 UTC+2 schrieb Grzegorz Grzybek:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm almost done with PAXWEB-1103 (XML configuration for Undertow) and
>>>>> it looks like this can no longer be considered a micro change.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to ask you if we can do this:
>>>>>  – create new branch pax-web-6.1.x out of current 6.0.x from which
>>>>> version 6.1.0 could be released soon (including PAXWEB-1103)
>>>>>  – have pax-web-6.0.x branch as is for 6.0.x maintenance
>>>>>  – bump version to 7.0.0-SNAPSHOT in master branch (to reflect work on
>>>>> R7 spec)
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>> regards
>>>>> Grzegorz Grzybek
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------
>>>> OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - [email protected]
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "OPS4J" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to [email protected].
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>> --
>> ------------------
>> OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - [email protected]
>>
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "OPS4J" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

-- 
-- 
------------------
OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - [email protected]

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"OPS4J" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to