+1
Gianny
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Jason replied on another thread that he prefers to stay with 1.2 for
the release.
Here is the proposed nomenclature
trunk(stays 1.2 but is completely replaced with branches/1.1)
branches/1.1unchanged
branches/dead-1.2 (is a copy of the original
+1
John
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Jason replied on another thread that he prefers to stay with 1.2 for
the release.
Here is the proposed nomenclature
trunk(stays 1.2 but is completely replaced with branches/1.1)
branches/1.1unchanged
branches/dead-1.2 (is a copy of the original
+1
On May 22, 2006, at 5:33 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Jason replied on another thread that he prefers to stay with 1.2
for the release.
Here is the proposed nomenclature
trunk (stays 1.2 but is completely replaced with branches/1.1)
branches/1.1unchanged
branches/dead-1.2 (is
How about adding a JIRA number at the end so in that JIRA we include the dead certificate (the
why's, what's and how's), i.e. 1.2-dead-1234
Cheers!
Hernan
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
+1 to move 1.1 to trunk and calling it 1.2
+1 for D Jencks suggestion on the naming of the old trunk to 1.2-dead.
Here is a JIRA to track this change
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2053
Please review. Here is the text of the JIRA right now so you can avoid a link.
** Begin **
To get us back on track for 1.2 development this JIRA is being opened to track and document changes
to the
+1
david jencks
On May 22, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Jason replied on another thread that he prefers to stay with 1.2
for the release.
Here is the proposed nomenclature
trunk (stays 1.2 but is completely replaced with branches/1.1)
branches/1.1unchanged
+1
John
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for
Geronimo. Assuming there is concurrence and no objections I would
like to:
move geronimo/trunk to geronimo/branches/oldtrunk
copy geronimo/branches/1.1 to geronimo/trunk
Update trunk to version
On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for Geronimo.
Assuming there is
concurrence and no objections I would like to:
move geronimo/trunk to geronimo/branches/oldtrunk
+1 for the idea of establishing a fresh trunk out
+1 for copy of 1.1 to trunk.
I'm +0 with oldtrunk but...
On May 21, 2006, at 11:38 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for
Geronimo. Assuming there is
concurrence and no objections I
On 5/22/06, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this would be kind of misleading. How about 1.2-dead to
indicate that we don't plan to release it?
Much, much better. +1 for 1.2-dead.
david jencks
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
+1 for 1.3 branch
+1 for a better name like 1.2-dead for the existing trunk branch.
Rick
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for
Geronimo. Assuming there is concurrence and no objections I would
like to:
move geronimo/trunk to
+1 for copy 1.1 to trunk
+1 for David's recommendation on the name, geronimo/branches/1.2-dead
David Jencks wrote:
+1 for copy of 1.1 to trunk.
I'm +0 with oldtrunk but...
On May 21, 2006, at 11:38 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like
+1
Paul
On 5/21/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for Geronimo.
Assuming there is
concurrence and no objections I would like to:
move geronimo/trunk to geronimo/branches/oldtrunk
copy geronimo/branches/1.1 to
+1
On 5/22/06, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
Paul
On 5/21/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for Geronimo.
Assuming there is
concurrence and no objections I would like to:
move geronimo/trunk to
+1 to move 1.1 to trunk and calling it 1.2
+1 for D Jencks suggestion on the naming of the old trunk to 1.2-dead.
Cheers
Prasad
On 5/22/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 5/22/06, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
Paul
On 5/21/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
On 5/22/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 5/22/06, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
Paul
On 5/21/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for Geronimo.
Assuming there is
concurrence and no
+1 on the move (non-binding). Quick question though, what is going to
happen to the session api that was added to trunk?
I ask because I'm about to submit a jira and patch that depends on
these api's.
Thanks,
Bill Dudney
MyFaces - http://myfaces.apache.org
Cayenne -
+1 for copy branches/1.1 to trunk
+0 for move of current trunk to oldtrunk
+1 for move existing trunk to a name indicating it was abandoned.
e.g. 'dead-1.2' or 'abandoned-1.2'. Note reversal of '1.2'. This
avoids directory name completion conflicts with the real 'branches/
1.2'. Typing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
-1 for the name - oldtrunk.
I simply think it doesn't convey any meaning - oldtrunk or to put it
straight - it won't very soon. We all know what it means/contains now,
but what about the coming months? I think at some
+1
Seems to need some kind of theme music while you are doing it...
geir
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for
Geronimo. Assuming there is concurrence and no objections I would like to:
move geronimo/trunk to geronimo/branches/oldtrunk
copy
how about deleteing it and put a note somewhere about the rev number so
someone can go back and get it if they wish, w/o it being received by
anyone doing a /branch checkout?
geir
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 5/22/06, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this would be kind of
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for
Geronimo. Assuming there is concurrence and no objections I would
like to:
move geronimo/trunk to geronimo/branches/oldtrunk
copy geronimo/branches/1.1 to geronimo/trunk
Update trunk to version 1.3. I
I think we can do that in a month. I'd prefer to leave it around until 1.3 goes out so people have
time to harvest their mods in that branch.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
how about deleteing it and put a note somewhere about the rev number so
someone can go back and get it if they wish, w/o it
Jason replied on another thread that he prefers to stay with 1.2 for the
release.
Here is the proposed nomenclature
trunk (stays 1.2 but is completely replaced with branches/1.1)
branches/1.1unchanged
branches/dead-1.2 (is a copy of the original trunk)
I think that incorporates
+1
--jason
On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason replied on another thread that he prefers to stay with 1.2 for the
release.
Here is the proposed nomenclature
trunk (stays 1.2 but is completely replaced with branches/1.1)
branches/1.1unchanged
+1
-dain
On May 22, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
+1
--jason
On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason replied on another thread that he prefers to stay with 1.2
for the release.
Here is the proposed nomenclature
trunk (stays 1.2 but is completely
+1
Regards,
Alan
Jason Dillon wrote:
+1
--jason
On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason replied on another thread that he prefers to stay with 1.2 for
the release.
Here is the proposed nomenclature
trunk (stays 1.2 but is completely replaced with
+1
Jan
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Jason replied on another thread that he prefers to stay with 1.2 for the
release.
Here is the proposed nomenclature
trunk(stays 1.2 but is completely replaced with branches/1.1)
branches/1.1unchanged
branches/dead-1.2 (is a copy of the original
That is correct. I suspect that after we release 1.2 we'll delete the dead-1.2
branch
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason replied on another thread that he prefers to stay with 1.2 for
the release.
Here is the proposed nomenclature
trunk
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for Geronimo. Assuming there is
concurrence and no objections I would like to:
move geronimo/trunk to geronimo/branches/oldtrunk
copy geronimo/branches/1.1 to geronimo/trunk
Update trunk to version 1.3. I think 1.3 is a better
+1 from me.
-- dims
On 5/21/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for Geronimo.
Assuming there is
concurrence and no objections I would like to:
move geronimo/trunk to geronimo/branches/oldtrunk
copy geronimo/branches/1.1
+1
Anita
--- Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 from me.
-- dims
On 5/21/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for
Geronimo. Assuming there is
concurrence and no objections I would like to:
move
+1
-dain
On May 21, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for
Geronimo. Assuming there is concurrence and no objections I would
like to:
move geronimo/trunk to geronimo/branches/oldtrunk
copy geronimo/branches/1.1 to
33 matches
Mail list logo
