IMHO, we can remove.
2008/3/10, Rahul Thakur [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There are some other branches residing in Continuum SVN. Should we
remove any (or all) of the following if they are not in active
development? I know (id-refactor and key-based-refactor can go)
# continuum-acegi
#
The branches have been removed except for 'continuum-site_1.1' which had
some updates a few months ago. If this is not required please feel free
to remove.
Rahul
Olivier Lamy wrote:
IMHO, we can remove.
2008/3/10, Rahul Thakur[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There are some other branches residing
2008/3/4, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 05/03/2008, at 5:18 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
2008/3/4, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Agree on this.
Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590
which
There are some other branches residing in Continuum SVN. Should we
remove any (or all) of the following if they are not in active
development? I know (id-refactor and key-based-refactor can go)
# continuum-acegi
# continuum-site_1.1
# gbuild
# id-refactor
# key-based-refactor
#
2008/3/4, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Agree on this.
Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which
prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are
only 14
On 05/03/2008, at 5:18 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
2008/3/4, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Agree on this.
Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590
which
prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
Cool - shall we just start using
On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
why 1.1.x?
in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what
the
branch was for...
Agree on this.
Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which
prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom
as parent.
--
Olivier
2008/3/4, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse
On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Agree on this.
Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which
prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are
only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30
Brett Porter wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
why 1.1.x?
in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the
branch
Hi,
I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on
a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and
none merged to the other.
Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to
1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x
why 1.1.x?
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on
a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and
none merged to the other.
Can I suggest we merge all branch
On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
why 1.1.x?
in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the
branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.
or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of development?
- Brett
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
why 1.1.x?
in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the
branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.
or is there going to be 2 completely
14 matches
Mail list logo
