-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi David, this is a good and important question. I don't know what's the best, i will think about it.
Torsten David H. DeWolf schrieb: > Torsten, > > Do you believe that it would be easier to merge the branch into the > trunk or merge the trunk changes since it was branched into the > branch? > > David > > > Torsten Dettborn wrote: Craig, > > i would like moving toward the "jsr-286". What David has already > said, everyone must decide himself on what implementation he want's > to work. But for the jsr-286 implementation it is important to make > a cut to the 168 implementation. I don't know what version is best > for. > > Torsten > > David H. DeWolf schrieb: >>>> >>>> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am very much against moving toward a 1.2.0 release. We >>>>> should not get mired in a 1.2.x release cycle of a JSR-168 >>>>> impl. We need to start moving toward jsr-286. The jsr-286 >>>>> EG will be releasing a public draft soon that is feature >>>>> complete. Torsten's work in the 286 branch has almost >>>>> caught up with the draft spec. Both Exo and JBoss portal >>>>> has preliminary (alpha/beta) jsr-286 releases. We should >>>>> not be that far behind. >>>> >>>> There's no reason why we can't do both. OS is about >>>> scratching your own itch. If someone wants to work on 1.2.x, >>>> then go for it. If you want to focus on 2.x, then by all >>>> means - do it! Shoot, if someone wanted to dig up 1.0.x they >>>> are welcome to do that as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>>> /Craig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Elliot Metsger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* >>>>> >>>>> 07/16/2007 10:00 AM Please respond to >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To [email protected] cc >>>>> >>>>> Subject Re: [VOTE] Pluto 1.1.4 Release >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Looks like the changes snuck in between the 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 >>>>> release with PLUTO-350 (r523130) - the relative URL >>>>> provider. I'm thinking we could probably take it out, but I >>>>> haven't taken a thorough look. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, since the change is out there with 1.1.3, 1.1.3 >>>>> users who move to 1.1.5 will be broken. >>>>> >>>>> We could re-release this 1.1.4 candidate as a 1.2.0, and >>>>> put a note on the website noting the 1.1.3 incompatibility. >>>>> Or just release 1.1.5 and retract 1.1.3? >>>>> >>>>> Elliot >>>>> >>>>> David H. DeWolf wrote: >>>>>> -1 >>>>>> >>>>>> 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 should be backwards compatible (binary >>>>>> and runtime compat). This looks to me like we introduced >>>>>> an >>>>> incompatibility. In the >>>>>> meantime, is there a workaround we can use in order to >>>>>> get 1.1.5 released without this incompatibility? >>>>>> >>>>>> This type of change can be added to 1.2.x BUT should be >>>>> specifically >>>>>> mentioned in an "upgrade" guide. >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>>> Charles Severance wrote: >>>>>>> Elliot, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Switching from 1.1.3 to 1.1.4 - Sakai compile fails >>>>>>> with the >>>>> following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> > /Users/csev/dev/sakai/portal/portal-render-impl/impl/src/java/org/sakaiproject/portal/render/portlet/services/SakaiPortalCallbackService.java:128: > > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> > org.sakaiproject.portal.render.portlet.services.SakaiPortalCallbackService.SakaiPortletURLProvider > > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> is not abstract and does not override abstract method >>>>>>> isSecureSupported() in >>>>>>> org.apache.pluto.spi.PortletURLProvider class >>>>>>> SakaiPortletURLProvider implements >>>>> PortletURLProvider >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Has an API changed? I am happy to update Sakai, adding >>>>>>> methods or whatever - let me know if this was an >>>>>>> intentional change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Chuck >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGnPU00Ji0BqEIlIURAqHzAKCLmMo/c58Ta3jFQUM//FBhXfJp2wCffJsA c93JQi3xKAHsqdjozgZ4BwY= =r1B/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
