that
> >> > > > > > in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat
> >> version
> >> > > > > > to the servlet spec 2.4?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > And do not forget:
Wessendorf
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 6:29 AM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
So,
any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ?
-Matthias
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I am
> +1 for Paul's suggest
the vote over HisFaces. ;-)
With kind regards,
Marco Beelen
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Aranda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 15:13
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
Ok, I see your points of h
ligned their
>> tomcat
>> > version
>> > > > > > > to the servlet spec 2.4?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > And do not forget:
>> > > > > > > There is not only the imp
more and more important. Also for tool
vendors.
> So
> > > > > > there will be more and more people and stuff out there
who/that
> relies
> > > > > > on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility.
> > > > > >
> > > &g
t; > > -1 veto
> > > > > on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as
the
> > > > > only reason for having 1.2.x is a "cosmetic" reason only to
help
> > > > > people not being confused.
> > > > > Perhaps I misse
> (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the
> > > > > > > component libs it is even more important to have that degree of
> > > > > > > freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API
> > change
> >
and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release.
> > > > > > MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors.
> So
> > > > > > there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that
> relies
> > > > > > on ou
t; >
> > > > > Sorry, but this is my binding
> > > > > -1 veto
> > > > > on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as
the
> > > > > only reason for having 1.2.x is a "cosmetic" reason only to help
> >
ssed something. If so, please explain to me what is a
> > > > proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for
having
> > > > 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Th
t; > 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Manfred
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > &g
> >
> > >
> > > +1 for 1.2
> > >
> > > -1 for 2.0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Using a "2.0" version is going to confuse people.
> > >
> > > ~~~
~~
> > Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> >
> >
> >
> > * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
> > http:
aServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
>
>
>
> * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
> http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re:
~~~
> > Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> >
> >
> >
> > * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
> > ht
; Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> >
> >
> >
> > * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
> > http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
> >
> >
> >
> >
gt;
> From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
>
>
>
>
> +1 for 1.2
> -1 for 2.0
>
>
> On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann <[EMAIL
- JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
d info
* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
+1 for 1.2
-1 for 2.0
On 5/18/07, M
+1 for 1.2
-1 for 2.0
On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 for 1.2
2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So,
>
> any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ?
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > I am
> > +1 for Paul
+1 for 1.2
2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
So,
any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ?
-Matthias
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I am
> +1 for Paul's suggestion:
>JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
>JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x
>
> and I am
> +1 for JSF 2.
let's hope they don't call the next JSF "JSF 6" (based on Java EE 6)
But, that would mean, we can jump from 1.2 => 6.
Not to bad! :-))
-M
On 5/17/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 for 1.2 as well, MyFaces 2.0 for JSF 1.2 and MyFaces 3.0 for JSF 2.0
sounds just strange to me.
Re
+1 for 1.2, based on the advantages of aligning with spec releases.
Best wishes,
Paul
On May 18, 2007, at 12:41 AM, Zubin Wadia wrote:
+1 for 1.2.
IMO, Save 2.0 for JSF2.0. It's just easier to explain to non-
community members that way and keeps it aligned with the spec
releases.
Chee
+1 for 1.2 as well, MyFaces 2.0 for JSF 1.2 and MyFaces 3.0 for JSF
2.0sounds just strange to me.
Regards,
~ Simon
On 5/18/07, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 for 1.2.
>
> IMO, Save 2.0 for JSF2.0. It's just easier to explain to non-community
> members that way and keeps it alig
+1 for 1.2.
IMO, Save 2.0 for JSF2.0. It's just easier to explain to non-community
members that way and keeps it aligned with the spec releases.
+1
Whoops. It *was* to the list.
On 5/17/07, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Did you mean for that to go to the list ? :)
On 5/17/07, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am still +1 for
> JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
> JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x
>
> Paul Spencer
>
> Matthias Wess
Did you mean for that to go to the list ? :)
On 5/17/07, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am still +1 for
JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x
Paul Spencer
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> So,
>
> any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ?
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 2/23/07, Manfr
I am still +1 for
JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x
Paul Spencer
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
So,
any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ?
-Matthias
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
I am
+1 for Paul's suggestion:
JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
JSF 1.2 ->
+1 for JSF 1.2 . It's more intuitive.
Dennis Byrne
On 5/17/07, Zubin Wadia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 for 1.2.
IMO, Save 2.0 for JSF2.0. It's just easier to explain to non-community
members that way and keeps it aligned with the spec releases.
Cheers,
Zubin.
On 5/18/07, Matthias Wesse
+1 for 1.2.
IMO, Save 2.0 for JSF2.0. It's just easier to explain to non-community
members that way and keeps it aligned with the spec releases.
Cheers,
Zubin.
On 5/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So,
any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ?
-Matthias
On 2/23/07, Manf
So,
any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ?
-Matthias
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
I am
+1 for Paul's suggestion:
JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x
and I am
+1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) -> MyFaces 3.x
--Manfred
I think a version number which is more similar to JSF standard versions will
be much easier for beginners. and less confusing
On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is to summarize the version number discussion.
MyFaces for JSF 1.1
1.1.5 - Current Release (Announced 19-Fe
I don't think Tomahawk has proved yet that it is independent from core
versioning. Take the MyFaces Core 1.1.4 incompatiblities between
Tomahawk 1.1.5 as an example.
I think we should take a "wait and see" attitude before we decide
we're going to start with Tomahawk 1.6 numbering.Remember,
Paul Spencer wrote:
This is to summarize the version number discussion.
MyFaces for JSF 1.1
1.1.5 - Current Release (Announced 19-Feb-2007)
1.1.6 - Next release not currently scheduled
MyFaces for JSF 1.2
2.0.0 - Currently being developed as MyFaces 1.2
MyFaces for JSF 2.0 / JSF 6
3.0.
+1
Thanks!
--Manfred
On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is to summarize the version number discussion.
MyFaces for JSF 1.1
1.1.5 - Current Release (Announced 19-Feb-2007)
1.1.6 - Next release not currently scheduled
MyFaces for JSF 1.2
2.0.0 - Currently being d
This is to summarize the version number discussion.
MyFaces for JSF 1.1
1.1.5 - Current Release (Announced 19-Feb-2007)
1.1.6 - Next release not currently scheduled
MyFaces for JSF 1.2
2.0.0 - Currently being developed as MyFaces 1.2
MyFaces for JSF 2.0 / JSF 6
3.0.0 - ?
Tomahawk for J
I am
+1 for Paul's suggestion:
JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x
and I am
+1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) -> MyFaces 3.x
thanks!!
Yes, of course.
Sorry for bringing total confusion into this thread!
Although it might seem so, I declare that I did NOT yet drink any beer today.
(Only a small glass of wine... ;-)
I am
+1 for Paul's suggestion:
JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x
and I am
+1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6
and tons of beer :-)
On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's Weisswurst we ate! and a lot of that stuff.
regards,
Martin
On 2/23/07, Jeff Bischoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I saw that post at the time, but figured it was the result of too much
> doppelbock and wieners
well... not in muc.
only "schnitzel Wiener art", which sucks. the original is the better :-))
hefeweizen kills the JSF.next :)
-M
On 2/23/07, Jeff Bischoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I saw that post at the time, but figured it was the result of too much
doppelbock and wienerschnitzel. ;)
Matth
It's Weisswurst we ate! and a lot of that stuff.
regards,
Martin
On 2/23/07, Jeff Bischoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I saw that post at the time, but figured it was the result of too much
doppelbock and wienerschnitzel. ;)
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Well... there was a meeting in munich, d
That would indeed be a very good change. Creating your own renderer
for Trinidad is quite hard currently...
regards,
Martin
On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @MyFaces-API: well, Trinidad regards all Trinidad-component classes as
> a Trinidad-API. We were once discuss
I saw that post at the time, but figured it was the result of too much
doppelbock and wienerschnitzel. ;)
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Well... there was a meeting in munich, during the october fest...
and they discussed that...
http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Projects/JSFDaysMunich2006
*snip*
Ver
@MyFaces-API: well, Trinidad regards all Trinidad-component classes as
a Trinidad-API. We were once discussing on having something like that
for MyFaces as well. For Trinidad, a renderer is not in the
Trinidad-API, a component is
that can change... I think stuff like "CoreRenderer" or XhtmlRende
8-)
On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It wasn't the beer _we_ were drinking - that must have been the Sun
officials' beer. ;)
regards,
Martin
On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1 on Dennis' suggestion (JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x, JSF 1.2 -> MyF
It wasn't the beer _we_ were drinking - that must have been the Sun
officials' beer. ;)
regards,
Martin
On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 on Dennis' suggestion (JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x, JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x)
dennis said:
1.1 -> 1.1.x,
1.2 -> 1.2.x
I think
1.1
Dennis was suggesting
JSF 1.1 --> MyFaces 1.1
JSF 1.2 --> MyFaces 1.2
I'm against that - Manfred, your suggestion sounds good.
@MyFaces-API: well, Trinidad regards all Trinidad-component classes as
a Trinidad-API. We were once discussing on having something like that
for MyFaces as well. For Tr
+1 on Dennis' suggestion (JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x, JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x)
dennis said:
1.1 -> 1.1.x,
1.2 -> 1.2.x
I think
1.1 -> 1.x.y
1.2 -> 2.x.y
is the better one...
--Manfred
On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
> the problem is that you don't ha
Well... there was a meeting in munich, during the october fest...
and they discussed that...
http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Projects/JSFDaysMunich2006
*snip*
Version synchronization. JSF 2.0 renamed JSF 6 to go with Java EE 6.
perhaps it was the beer ;)))
On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTE
6.0? Seriously?
Dennis Byrne
On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
there was a wiki page which says that they want to have the next
version of jsf (2.0)
named 6.0
so... I am not really seeing any reason to go from myfaces 1.2 to a 6 ...
:-)
On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne <[EM
Well, in reallife there should not be (better: must not be) such a
thing like a MyFaces-API that differs from the JSF-API, but:
Every JSF-Implementation is free to implement certain add-on features
or optimizations. These are the things you normally configure with
those web.xml config-params. So,
there was a wiki page which says that they want to have the next
version of jsf (2.0)
named 6.0
so... I am not really seeing any reason to go from myfaces 1.2 to a 6 ...
:-)
On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
>JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x
I'd rather
How about
JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.1.x
JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 1.2.x
Tomahawk for JSF 1.1 -> Tomahawk 1.x
Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 -> Tomahawk 2.x
for JSF 1.1 -> 1.x
for JSF 1.2 -> 2.x
Paul Spencer
Dennis Byrne wrote:
JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x
I'd rather keep the relea
Hi Dennis,
the problem is that you don't have any leeway to change the
MyFaces-API (read: not JSF API) incompatible to what it had been
before. Well, given we finally reach the point at which we have a
pretty stable API between bugfix-releases.
regards,
Martin
On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL
JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x
I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers.
1.1 -> 1.1.x,
1.2 -> 1.2.x
Paul Spencer
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> we sould do the same for core
>
> next is 1.5.0
>
> and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0
>
> On
I would suggest keeping the MyFaces core version in
1.1.x range becuse any releses are just bug fixes. New
functionality can only be added when the JSR changes. At
that point should the minor version change.
+1 on releasing JSF 1.2 implementation as 2.0.0
Thus :
JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
JSF
+1
On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) Release the head, currently know as 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT, as 1.1.5.
2) During the release process, the release plugin prompts for the next
version number. Answer 1.6.0-SNAPSHOT to the prompt.
Paul Spencer
Manfred Geiler wrote:
> 1.5.0 o
1) Release the head, currently know as 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT, as 1.1.5.
2) During the release process, the release plugin prompts for the next
version number. Answer 1.6.0-SNAPSHOT to the prompt.
Paul Spencer
Manfred Geiler wrote:
1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO.
You mean 1.6.0 is
we sould do the same for core
next is 1.5.0
and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO.
You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not "match" the 1.1.5 of current core?
I think Martin suggest
1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO.
You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not "match" the 1.1.5 of current core?
I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of
Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right?
--Manfred
On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-1 on 1.5.0. We have called it 1.1.5 for many months. Also the reasons
I presented for NOT calling it 1.1.4
+1 on the next version of 1.6.0
Manfred Geiler wrote:
Yes, good idea.
So, next tomahawk release would be 1.5.0.
+1 on that from my side
--Manfred
On 2/23/07, Martin Ma
If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then
how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6?
This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces.
Paul Spencer
Martin Marinschek wrote:
slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as
Yes, good idea.
So, next tomahawk release would be 1.5.0.
+1 on that from my side
--Manfred
On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well.
other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync
that would be another very good option
-M
On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well.
other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync.
regards,
Martin
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAI
slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well.
other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync.
regards,
Martin
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, thanks for your feedback.
Branch 1.1.5 created.
--Manfred
On 2/23/07, Wen
Ok, thanks for your feedback.
Branch 1.1.5 created.
--Manfred
On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off.
> We must decide between
> - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatibl
r, it seems strange to just throw it away and follow-up 1.1.3
>> by 1.1.5
>>
>> Regards,
>> Erik-Berndt
>>
>>
>> ____
>>
>> Van: Cagatay Civici [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Verzonden: vr 23-2-2007 9:27
>> A
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off.
We must decide between
- releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and
therefore might confuse users
- skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk
1
:27
Aan: MyFaces Development
Onderwerp: Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
Hi,
+1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk
and releasing 1.1.4.
Cagatay
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
Ok fo
it seems strange to just throw it away and follow-up 1.1.3 by
1.1.5
> >
> > Regards,
> > Erik-Berndt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Van: Cagatay Civici [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Verzonden: vr 23-2-2007 9:27
> > A
gt; Aan: MyFaces Development
> Onderwerp: Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> +1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk and
releasing 1.1.4.
>
> Cagatay
>
>
> On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: vr 23-2-2007 9:27
Aan: MyFaces Development
Onderwerp: Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
Hi,
+1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk and
releasing 1.1.4.
Cagatay
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMA
Same as Cagatay. Current head should be stable enough!
There was no big change last weeks in tomahawk. Due to using latest
tom in a current app
i can admit that there seem to be no new issues.
Gerald
On 2/23/07, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
+1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creatin
Onderwerp: Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
Hi,
+1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk and
releasing 1.1.4.
Cagatay
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
wrote:
Ok folks, I will try to start the release
Hi,
+1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk and
releasing 1.1.4.
Cagatay
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok folks, I will try to start the release process for tomahawk next week.
Well, regarding the branch there are various possibilities:
-
Ok folks, I will try to start the release process for tomahawk next week.
Well, regarding the branch there are various possibilities:
- use the already existing 1.1.4 branch from Nov. 2006 and release 1.1.4
- throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new branch and release 1.1.4
- (optionally) thr
+1 on this idea.
Tomahawk has settled down since the Dojo move and has been running
relatively stable. Best to ensure the next release is branched sometime
before any more big changes. (Tomahawk 1.1.4 RC is very good too) :)
Paul Spencer wrote:
We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, whic
:-)
+1
On 2/22/07, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, which resolved blockers
related to Tomahawk. Can we get a Tomahawk release done before we start
changing things for Fusion?
Paul Spencer
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
78 matches
Mail list logo
