> -Original Message-
> From: David Crossley [mailto:cross...@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, 3 July 2010 7:18 PM
> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> Subject: Re: release process for our plugins
>
> David Crossley wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > > I h
David Crossley wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > I have been doing some more review, and will attempt to
> > present a proposal soon.
>
> Still :-)
>
> > --
> > The following do not have an entry in the plugins
> > descriptor file whiteboard-plugins.xml and have never
> > been deploy
I am going to take the opportunity before we do deployment
of plugins, to tweak the presentation of plugin websites.
Don't let that stop you guys from getting your favourite
plugin ready.
-David
David Crossley wrote:
> I have been doing some more review, and will attempt to
> present a proposal soon.
Still :-)
> --
> The following do not have an entry in the plugins
> descriptor file whiteboard-plugins.xml and have never
> been deployed to the website ...
> Database, OpenOffi
I have been doing some more review, and will attempt to
present a proposal soon.
We have 12 plugins, and 34 whiteboard plugins.
--
The situation with Java code ...
With the core plugins, only one has Java code: PhotoGallery.
With the whiteboard plugins, only six have Java code:
Data
I want to update the "Anakia output" plugin.
Have found a much simpler way of configuring
a Forrest-using project to export all of their
site content.
So i will deploy the existing plugin once more.
Then increment its "plugin version", then make
the changes, then deploy again.
It is important th
David Crossley wrote:
> Gav... wrote:
> >
> > Ok, but still, I'm confused as to why 0.8 version plugins, i.e.
> > most of them, are appearing in the 0.7 and 0.9 versions of
> > the plugins page. That's what I see as broken.
>
> Ah, sorry i misread your question.
>
> Yes, i too think that there
Gav... wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Gav... wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, but the plugins when rebuilt will be done so with Java 1.5 , how
> > > will that affect things?
> >
> > Ah good point. We should have done a deploy of all
> > plugins that had Java code (only some do) before
> > doing that cha
> -Original Message-
> From: David Crossley [mailto:cross...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, 7 June 2010 12:06 PM
> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> Subject: Re: release process for our plugins
>
> Gav... wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > > Gav... wrote
Gav... wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Gav... wrote:
> > >
> > > When code has been changed on a plugin since the last release, are we
> > using
> > > the
> > > policy of 'lets upgrade the forrest version required as well as the
> > plugin
> > > version number' - that would make it easier all ro
Gav... wrote:
>
> Ok, but still, I'm confused as to why 0.8 version plugins, i.e.
> most of them, are appearing in the 0.7 and 0.9 versions of
> the plugins page. That's what I see as broken.
Ah, sorry i misread your question.
Yes, i too think that there is something wrong with that
"Plugins I
> -Original Message-
> From: David Crossley [mailto:cross...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, 7 June 2010 10:28 AM
> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> Subject: Re: release process for our plugins
>
> Gav... wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > >
> > >
David Crossley wrote:
> Gav... wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > >
> > > It should be easy to whip around each plugin and
> > > do a proper release of each.
> > >
> > > That also means that each plugin has a specific marked
> > > version, rather than just a continual work-in-progress.
> >
> >
Gav... wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >
> > It should be easy to whip around each plugin and
> > do a proper release of each.
> >
> > That also means that each plugin has a specific marked
> > version, rather than just a continual work-in-progress.
>
> OK, when updating documentation for a plu
> -Original Message-
> From: David Crossley [mailto:cross...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 12:50 PM
> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> Subject: Re: release process for our plugins
>
> Gav... wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> > >
> > >
David Crossley wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
>
> > The draft
> > release doc in the plugins directory suggests that its possible to
> > release plugins independent of the core but couldn't we, for now, just
> > as well continue to do what we do and release the plugins with the
> > core?
>
> Ah, b
Gav... wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >
> > One very important reason for designing the plugin system
> > the way that we did, was to ensure that each plugin has
> > its own community supporting it.
>
> That doesn't seem to be the case to me at the moment, ...
That is one reason that i raised
> -Original Message-
> From: David Crossley [mailto:cross...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, 4 June 2010 11:00 AM
> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> Subject: Re: release process for our plugins
>
> One very important reason for designing the plugin system
> the way th
One very important reason for designing the plugin system
the way that we did, was to ensure that each plugin has
its own community supporting it.
-David
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Williams [mailto:william...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, 28 May 2010 12:20 AM
> To: dev@forrest.apache.org
> Subject: Re: release process for our plugins
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:16 AM, David Crossley
> wrote:
> > We do
Tim Williams wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >
> The "release process" issue? relative to plugins I assume?
Yep, as i said, i reckon that our core releae process is fine.
Just the release process for each plugin needs attention.
> The draft
> release doc in the plugins directory suggests that
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:16 AM, David Crossley wrote:
> We do have a process sorted out for releasing of Forrest core.
> [1] How to release Forrest
> http://forrest.apache.org/procedures/release/How_to_release.html
>
> I reckon that it meets the ASF requirements. Please see
> this email where i h
22 matches
Mail list logo
