+1, but we also might have a few fixes, since we are just converting our patches to work with Roller 2.0 released and are finding some bugs we could use in a roller 2.0.2 release.
Thanks, Elias On 12/9/05, Anil Gangolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +0 > > No objection. Unfortunately, I am not properly set up to test on > PostgreSQL at this time. Otherwise I would. > > > Matt Raible wrote: > > >+1 for release. Unfortunately, I won't have time to test it. > > > >Matt > > > >On 12/8/05, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>that sounds good to me. since we are doing this we should probably also > >>include a fix for the error reported when using oracle. > >> > >>-- Allen > >> > >> > >>Dave Johnson wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>I just uploaded Roller 2.0.1 RC1 to my personal space on > >>>people.apache.org. > >>> > >>>*** Why do we need to release 2.0.1? > >>> > >>>The database upgrade scripts and start-up code did not work properly > >>>for those upgrading from PostgreSQL. > >>> > >>>*** What is Roller 2.0.1? > >>> > >>>A bug fix release of Roller 2.0 for those upgrading PostgreSQL based > >>>Roller systems. > >>>Upgrading PostgreSQL users should download this release instead of > >>>Roller 2.0. > >>> > >>>The release was built from roller/branches/roller_2.0 rev 355352 > >>>Changes were made to the 130-to-200 migration script and the > >>>UpgradeDatabase class which was using syntax incompatible with > >>>PostgreSQL. > >>> > >>>I've tested the upgrade scripts and code with MySQL and PostgreSQL and > >>>I've given a copy of the build to the fellow who reported the problem > >>>so that he can verify the fix. > >>> > >>>Additional testing would be very nice. > >>> > >>> > >>>- Dave > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > >
