Re: 2.1.0-M2 Release

[Eric Dalquist]

Hah, I didn't even think of that when I read through it but it makes sense as well. I have a conference coming next week but after that I'll make sure that trunk and the 2.0 branch are in sync and plan on the next uPortal release using that and continuing with that path until the larger changes are made in trunk.

-Eric

On 5/19/11 2:05 AM, Ate Douma wrote:

LOL, I now see my previous anwer gave the wrong suggestion :)



Clearly I wasn't clear enough :)



Ate


On 05/17/2011 09:53 PM, Eric Dalquist wrote:

To be clear, I'm fine with doing the 2.0.3 release *myself*, but what I intended to say below was that, if the differences between 2.1.0 trunk and 2.0.3 branch are so minimal, *you* could just as well release and use the 2.0.3 (with the minimal backports applied) instead of a 2.1.0-M2... Anyway, as the trunk is as much alike with the 2.0.3 branch which we're using/testing for a long while already, I'll vote +1 on for the M2 release shortly.

Sounds good. I'll leave the 2.0 and 2.1 branches as they are for now other than making sure any relevant patches have been applied to both. I agree the two open issues can be punted though I'll take a peak at the ant task bundling issue and see if that isn't something that can be tackled with a quick fix in the build

packaging script.

-Eric

On 05/17/2011 11:15 AM, Ate Douma wrote:

On 05/17/2011 05:07 PM, Eric Dalquist wrote:

Not in the next two months or so, just don't have time. I still have some re-org changes I'd like to work on but if we want to scrap the 2.1 versioning for now and stick trunk back to 2.0 so we have less to maintain I'm fine with that.

I'd just as well be fine with releasing 2.0.3 instead.

only minor impact on Jetspeed to realign (only the added
RequestContext.getAttribute method, which is fine).




release that after the minor backport changes.


version.

Thanks,

Ate

It'll need just the few differences from trunk backported, which will have But it depends on your goals and objectives. Doing the above would mean for uPortal to switch (back) to 2.0.3, but technically it wouldn't make a difference. Scraping the 2.1 trunk however doesn't make sense if you plan to work on this in a few months anyway. So in your case I'd just take the 2.0.x branch and Note: there are also still 2 open issues on 2.0.3 and 2.1.0 both, both of which IMO can be bumped to a later 2.0.x and/or delegated to (only) the 2.1.0

-Eric

On 05/17/2011 09:49 AM, Ate Douma wrote:

On 05/17/2011 04:28 PM, Eric Dalquist wrote:

In preparation for an RC of uPortal I'd like to get a M2 release of Pluto

2.1.0

artifacts this evening and then post a vote.

cut. If there are no objections I'll start the process of staging the M2

No objections from me.
We'll soon will need a release for Jetspeed 2.2.2 as well (currently
configured using Pluto 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT).


one minor API change on RequestContext (adding getAttribute call) ...

Are you still planning to do major (re)work or changes after 2.1.0?

Ate

BTW: I just did a src tree compare between 2.0.3-SNAPSHOT and 2.1.0-SNAPSHOT and the difference so far really are still only trivial, even including the

-Eric

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature