On 10/21/05, Craig Doremus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would you please let us know your issues building so we can help work through them and resolve any issues we may have.
I have updated the m2 references to mvn.
Is this something you're willing to work on? My experience is that the docs will get flushed out as things stabalize and new users get involved. I'd hate to put the onus on the few of us that are actively developing 1.1 to create comprehensive documentation. If this is a requirement we will never get 1.1 moving.
Really? It seems like the only way this will happen is if we begin to make more steady progress. To me, steady progress happens by elevating 1.1 to trunk - which represents the "primary" development repo.
Perhaps we have different philosophies on what the trunk is. To me it is the primary development source code. It does not reflect the stability of the code - that's what releases do.
Please let me know your thoughts,
David
David H. DeWolf wrote:
>Now that the 1.0.1 release is out, I would like to propose that we move the
>1.1 branch to the trunk and designate 1.0.1 in maintenance mode. This will
>reflect the reality that 1.1 is the primary place for development activity
>and that 1.0.1 is no longer being actively enhanced.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>David
>
>
>
-1
I think this is a bit premature. Here are my reasons:
1. We need to make sure the 1.1 branch builds with maven 2.0 final
release. It doesn't work for me. BTW, the m2 maven 2.0 driver is now
deprecated. The README file needs to change to reflect this fact.
Would you please let us know your issues building so we can help work through them and resolve any issues we may have.
I have updated the m2 references to mvn.
2. We need more 1.1 xdocs. The docs I put together on building 1.1 needs
to be expanded and be more explicit.There is no documentation on how to
integrate the 1.1 portlet container into a portal. It would also be a
good idea to have some documentation on 1.1 architecture.
Is this something you're willing to work on? My experience is that the docs will get flushed out as things stabalize and new users get involved. I'd hate to put the onus on the few of us that are actively developing 1.1 to create comprehensive documentation. If this is a requirement we will never get 1.1 moving.
3. All major functionality of the portlet container should work
including cross-context session dispatching like Zheng has pointed out.
Really? It seems like the only way this will happen is if we begin to make more steady progress. To me, steady progress happens by elevating 1.1 to trunk - which represents the "primary" development repo.
Perhaps we have different philosophies on what the trunk is. To me it is the primary development source code. It does not reflect the stability of the code - that's what releases do.
Please let me know your thoughts,
David
