Re: 2.1 build

Thanks Don! Looks like you had another late night. I'll migrate a large 2.0.9 application to 2.1.1 this weekend, updating the migration guide as I go. James Mitchell wrote: Don, I'm checking out the tag now and will be giving it a thorough test drive today and tomorrow. Thanks On Thu, Apr 1

Re: 2.1 build

Yes, I agree. I'd like to take a shot at it next time. I've been too busy lately to do anything other than work on my client's major release. Things should slow down a little next week and the week after. Thanks again for all you go! On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: 2.1 build

Cool, thanks James. Man, this release, while much, much better thanks to Wendy and Antonio, still takes _forever_ and is error prone. One main culprit is the speed (or lack thereof) of the scp wagon, and of course, it doesn't help I'm doing this from Australia (where it is 12:30 AM on a Friday mo

Re: 2.1 build

Don, I'm checking out the tag now and will be giving it a thorough test drive today and tomorrow. Thanks On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm in the process of creating that build right now. Soon, I will > announce the build to this list and ask for testi

Re: 2.1 build

I'm in the process of creating that build right now. Soon, I will announce the build to this list and ask for testing. The Struts community will then vote as to its quality, and it may turn into a beta or GA release, or remain a test build. Personally, I'm aiming for a beta release and expect to

Re: 2.1 build

hi, Is it the tagged version 2.1.1 under subversion "https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/struts2/tags/STRUTS_2_1_1"; the recommended 2.1.x to be used? Will it appear as official GA download anytime soon? thanks in advance, Best regards, Giovanni ---

Re: 2.1 build - Isn't it the right time to release Struts2.1?

We start with a new web program, and I would like to choose struts2.1 since a lot of new features and great changes. I know that struts2.1 sources can be downloaded from svn, but a release version may mean that one can take use of it in production. Appreciate your work very much. Regards. -- Vi

Re: 2.1 build

Ok, Struts Annotations 1.0.3 has been signed and released to the ibiblio sync'ed repository. If anyone was itching to jump in and get Struts 2.1.1 out, this would be the time. Don On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FWIW, Struts Annotations 1.0.3 has been rele

Re: [S1] Heads up: Incompatible change in Struts 1.3.6 (WAS: Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem)

2008/4/13, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Antonio Petrelli > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > It seems that Al Sutton found an incompatible change in Struts 1.3. The > > following issue added an incompatible change to Struts 1.3: > > https:

Re: [S1] Heads up: Incompatible change in Struts 1.3.6 (WAS: Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem)

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > It seems that Al Sutton found an incompatible change in Struts 1.3. The > following issue added an incompatible change to Struts 1.3: > https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2864 > > This leads to a c

Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem

2008/4/10, Jeromy Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > S2.1.1 isn't without bugs. I want it tagged and released (non GA) so more > people can try it and so we can get some momentum again. In fact I think that the "bug" is on the S1 side, I found the related issue: https://issues.apache.org/struts/brow

[S1] Heads up: Incompatible change in Struts 1.3.6 (WAS: Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem)

Hi all, It seems that Al Sutton found an incompatible change in Struts 1.3. The following issue added an incompatible change to Struts 1.3: https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2864 This leads to a compilation error for S2/S1 plugin: https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-2586 In the "

Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem

uot; Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:53 AM Subject: Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem 2008/4/10, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: D:\Struts2\Build\struts2\plugins\struts1\src\main\java\org\apache\struts2\s1\WrapperModuleConfig.java:[41,0] org.apache.struts2.s1.WrapperModuleConfig is n

Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem

2.1.1 :(. Al. - Original Message - From: "Antonio Petrelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Developers List" Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:53 AM Subject: Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem 2008/4/10, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: D:\Struts2\Build\

Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem

2008/4/10, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > D:\Struts2\Build\struts2\plugins\struts1\src\main\java\org\apache\struts2\s1\WrapperModuleConfig.java:[41,0] > org.apache.struts2.s1.WrapperModuleConfig is not abstract and does not > override abstract method findActionConfigId(java.lang.String) in > or

Re: 2.1 build - Possible problem

o: "Struts Developers List" Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:15 AM Subject: Re: 2.1 build Martin Cooper wrote: On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Jeromy Evans < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Understood. Can I sign and distribute Don's binaries[1] or *must* they be sign

Re: 2.1 build

2008/4/9, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Actually, it did. If you just add up the +1's, they are much more > than the single -1, and even that was given under the assumption that > as soon as there were signatures, it would turn into a +1. My reading > of the bylaws shows it only needed a maj

Re: 2.1 build

Actually, it did. If you just add up the +1's, they are much more than the single -1, and even that was given under the assumption that as soon as there were signatures, it would turn into a +1. My reading of the bylaws shows it only needed a majority vote after a 72 hour window, so yes, it did p

Re: 2.1 build

I don't know Martin, don't you think there is security-conscious and then there is over-doing it a bit? If Jeromy took the jars as I deployed to the staging repo, signed them, then released them to the mirrors, wouldn't that be sufficient? He can check the timestamp of the file and see it was I w

Re: 2.1 build

2008/4/8, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I'm also not sure how the vote passed, if they were never signed > originally. I think that the vote did not pass: http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=15540281&framed=y Antonio

Re: 2.1 build

Martin Cooper wrote: On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Jeromy Evans < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Understood. Can I sign and distribute Don's binaries[1] or *must* they be signed by the person that built them? I've lost track of why Don can't sign them himself, but I would consider it

Re: 2.1 build

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Jeromy Evans < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin Cooper wrote: > > > > > > If the binaries Jeromy created are bit-for-bit identical to the ones > > > you > > > built, then I don't have a problem. If they're not, then what he has > > > built > > > is not the same as

Re: 2.1 build

Martin Cooper wrote: If the binaries Jeromy created are bit-for-bit identical to the ones you built, then I don't have a problem. If they're not, then what he has built is not the same as what was voted on. And more to the point, actually, it's not what people tested before they voted.

Re: 2.1 build

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > *sigh* is this all necessary? I mean, by using the Maven release > > plugin, the binaries are created off the tag. A quick SVN command can > >

Re: 2.1 build

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *sigh* is this all necessary? I mean, by using the Maven release > plugin, the binaries are created off the tag. A quick SVN command can > confirm the tag hasn't been modified, so I don't see any problem with > Jeromy buildin

Re: 2.1 build

*sigh* is this all necessary? I mean, by using the Maven release plugin, the binaries are created off the tag. A quick SVN command can confirm the tag hasn't been modified, so I don't see any problem with Jeromy building new binaries and finishing the release. The vote had passed with the caveat

Re: 2.1 build

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Jeromy Evans < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin Cooper wrote: > > > > > Please do *not* edit that file directly. The KEYS file is maintained in > > SVN, > > so you need to update that and then refresh the file on the site from > > that. > > > > https://svn.apache.

Re: 2.1 build

Wendy Smoak wrote: On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Jeromy Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've signed struts-annotations-1.0.3 using [EMAIL PROTECTED] and copied to [1]. Where/how did you sign them? Were the files re-built? Generally you only sign what you build yourself, while it'

Re: 2.1 build

Martin Cooper wrote: Please do *not* edit that file directly. The KEYS file is maintained in SVN, so you need to update that and then refresh the file on the site from that. https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/maven/trunk/build/KEYS Fixed. I've updated the instructions: http://cwiki.ap

Re: 2.1 build

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Jeromy Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've signed struts-annotations-1.0.3 using [EMAIL PROTECTED] and copied to > [1]. Where/how did you sign them? Were the files re-built? Generally you only sign what you build yourself, while it's under your control on a m

Re: 2.1 build

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Jeromy Evans < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeromy Evans wrote: > > > I've signed struts-annotations-1.0.3 using [EMAIL PROTECTED] and copied > > to [1]. > > > > Can some please take a moment to check these? If they're okay I presume > > the artefacts then just nee

Re: 2.1 build

Jeromy Evans wrote: I've signed struts-annotations-1.0.3 using [EMAIL PROTECTED] and copied to [1]. Can some please take a moment to check these? If they're okay I presume the artefacts then just need to be copied to the right location for rsync to ibiblio. Any other formalities for struts

[S2] Signing and digesting artifacts (WAS: Re: 2.1 build)

2008/4/8, Jeromy Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I've signed struts-annotations-1.0.3 using [EMAIL PROTECTED] and copied to > [1]. > > Can some please take a moment to check these? If they're okay I presume > the artefacts then just need to be copied to the right location for rsync to > ibiblio. A

Re: 2.1 build

I've signed struts-annotations-1.0.3 using [EMAIL PROTECTED] and copied to [1]. Can some please take a moment to check these? If they're okay I presume the artefacts then just need to be copied to the right location for rsync to ibiblio. Any other formalities for struts-annotations? [1] ht

Re: 2.1 build

L PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:58 AM To: "Struts Developers List" Subject: Re: 2.1 build Yeah, I was hoping to have time to get the convention plugin into the main repository, but I just haven't had anytime at all. It will have to wait until 2.2 unless someone

Re: 2.1 build

Thanks, Don. BTW, getting setup for digital signing is harder than it sounds. Every committer should consider generating a signature and putting it on file with the foundation. Signing isn't hard, but it can be a stumblingblock when it comes to posting a release. * http://struts.apache.org/2.0.

Re: 2.1 build

FWIW, Struts Annotations 1.0.3 has been released and approved, but I haven't had time to finish it off by signing the jar and moving it to the official repo. I'll try to find some time in the next few days if no one beats me to it. Don On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: 2.1 build

e pom? >> >> Al. >> - Original Message ----- >> From: "Jeromy Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Struts Developers List" >> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 9:35 AM >> Subject: Re: 2.1 build >> >> >>> >

Re: 2.1 build

gt; bumping >> the version in the core pom? >> >> Al. >> - Original Message ----- >> From: "Jeromy Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Struts Developers List" >> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 9:35 AM >> Subject: Re: 2.1 bu

Re: 2.1 build

velopers List" > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 9:35 AM > Subject: Re: 2.1 build > > >> >> Is the release of struts-annotations-1.0.3 a blocker? It's not in >> central >> yet. >> struts-annotations dependencies: >> ./core/pom.xml:425: 1

Re: 2.1 build

Ted Husted wrote: Yes, it is something we should do first. It's on the list, but I usually forget about it until the last minute ... :) Are you setup to digitally sign the releases, Jeromy? I've started working my way through it now. I'll have to come back to it tomorrow as it's too late

Re: 2.1 build

Am Donnerstag, 3. April 2008 17:58:41 schrieb Brian Pontarelli: > Yeah, I was hoping to have time to get the convention plugin into the > main repository, but I just haven't had anytime at all. It will have to > wait until 2.2 unless someone else wants to move it over. At this point > I can't even

Re: 2.1 build

Yes, it is something we should do first. It's on the list, but I usually forget about it until the last minute ... :) Are you setup to digitally sign the releases, Jeromy? It's the one-time section of Creating and Signing a Distributiob * http://struts.apache.org/2.0.11.1/docs/creating-and-sig

Re: 2.1 build

evelopers List" Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 9:35 AM Subject: Re: 2.1 build Is the release of struts-annotations-1.0.3 a blocker? It's not in central yet. struts-annotations dependencies: ./core/pom.xml:425: 1.0.3-20080216.121126-3 ./plugins/dojo/pom.xml:261: 1.0.3-20080123.12351

Re: 2.1 build

Is the release of struts-annotations-1.0.3 a blocker? It's not in central yet. struts-annotations dependencies: ./core/pom.xml:425: 1.0.3-20080216.121126-3 ./plugins/dojo/pom.xml:261: 1.0.3-20080123.123514-2 ../maven/struts-annotations/pom.xml: 1.0.4-SNAPSHOT Jeromy Evans wrote: Ted, I tr

Re: 2.1 build

I had a miror configured (http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/maven2). I've passed that hiccup using the central repository. Rainer Hermanns wrote: Jeromy, that's strange... XWork 2.1.1 jars are all available from the central repository. See here: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/com/opensymphony/xwork/2.

Re: 2.1 build

2008/4/4, Jeromy Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Ted, I tried to get you started with a dryRun of release:prepare but I'm > still missing xwork.jar:2.1.1. The mvn output is at > http://people.apache.org/~jeromy/buildlog1.txt This is strange, the

Re: 2.1 build

Jeromy, that's strange... XWork 2.1.1 jars are all available from the central repository. See here: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/com/opensymphony/xwork/2.1.1/ cheers, Rainer > Ted, I tried to get you started with a dryRun of release:prepare but I'm > still missing xwork.jar:2.1.1. The mvn outp

Re: 2.1 build

Ted, I tried to get you started with a dryRun of release:prepare but I'm still missing xwork.jar:2.1.1. The mvn output is at http://people.apache.org/~jeromy/buildlog1.txt Other details: * JIRA: No open issues except the omnibus ticket (https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-2421) * Rel

Re: 2.1 build

If it isn't ready I don't think we should wait for it at this point. A 2.1 release is long "overdue" IMO. regards musachy On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, I was hoping to have time to get the convention plugin into the main > repository, but I j

Re: 2.1 build

Yeah, I was hoping to have time to get the convention plugin into the main repository, but I just haven't had anytime at all. It will have to wait until 2.2 unless someone else wants to move it over. At this point I can't even recall the outstanding issues and design changes that were being dis

Re: 2.1 build

It would be easier to ask if anyone is working on something that needs to be included (SmartUrls?). regards musachy On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm still heads-down, but I could run a build through the gauntlet. > Can anyone confirm that everything els

Re: 2.1 build

I'm still heads-down, but I could run a build through the gauntlet. Can anyone confirm that everything else we want to do is done, and we're at the tag and roll point? -Ted. On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted, others, > > xwork 2.1.1 is out and shoul

Re: 2.1 build

Ted, others, xwork 2.1.1 is out and should be in the repos shortly. So we should be ready for a Struts 2.1.1 release build now. thanks for waiting, Rainer On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:24 AM, Ted Husted wrote: And, if we're ready to roll a Struts after that, I'd be happy to step through the process W

Re: 2.1 build

And, if we're ready to roll a Struts after that, I'd be happy to step through the process Wednesday night. -Ted. On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, but I have to delay the xwork release until tomorrow. > cheers, > Rainer > > > > > Hey there, >

Re: 2.1 build

Sorry, but I have to delay the xwork release until tomorrow. cheers, Rainer > Hey there, > > I am working on the open issues for xwork 2.1.1 over the weekend, > so that the release could be out on monday. > Since lots of fixes and changes were done affecting S2.1 core > features, testing S2.1 with

Re: 2.1 build

2008/3/29, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Looks like another improvement > could be made to "attach" the assemblies so they don't have to be > built separately In Tiles, the assemblies are attached and deployed to the Maven repository, but they are significantly smaller artifacts than Struts

Re: 2.1 build

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Jeromy Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ie. is it safe to execute the release goal with -DdryRun=true? or does > this risk committing? Yes, it's safe. As long as you don't misspell dryRun (I've missed the capital R before...) Even if you do accidentally co

Re: 2.1 build

2008/3/29, Jeromy Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > ie. is it safe to execute the release goal with -DdryRun=true? or does > this risk committing? I suppose that you are referring to "release:prepare" goal. It is safe, since all the changes are made locally and not committed (tested with Tiles). An

Re: 2.1 build

2008/3/29, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > What do you mean by dry run? The release:prepare goal has a > -DdryRun=true parameter... but AFAIK Struts does not use the release > plugin. (Yet?) In fact it does: http://cwiki.apache.org/WW/creating-and-signing-a-struts-21x-distribution.html Anto

Re: 2.1 build

Wendy Smoak wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Jeromy Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd hoped to perform a dry-run myself but don't see how I can do that without committing via mvn release:prepare. What do you mean by dry run? The release:prepare goal has a -DdryRun=true pa

Re: 2.1 build

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Jeromy Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd hoped to perform a dry-run myself but don't see how I can do that > without committing via mvn release:prepare. What do you mean by dry run? The release:prepare goal has a -DdryRun=true parameter... but AFAIK Struts

Re: 2.1 build

I'm available to perform a good chunk of testing. Ted, if you do it can you keep some notes on the tasks you perform? Or is there anything with more detail than [1] or a previously used release plan for 2.x? I'd hoped to perform a dry-run myself but don't see how I can do that without committi

Re: 2.1 build

Hey there, I am working on the open issues for xwork 2.1.1 over the weekend, so that the release could be out on monday. Since lots of fixes and changes were done affecting S2.1 core features, testing S2.1 with latest xwork snapshots would help to get both codebases stablelized. Please report xwo

Re: 2.1 build

I will help testing it (I don't have any application on production tho). Ted if you could do it, it would be great, I think it is about time we get a build out there. regards musachy On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there much to do beside tag it, build

Re: 2.1 build

Is there much to do beside tag it, build it, and sign it? I could help with that much, so long as other people are testing it. -Ted. On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Pedro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > good question . . . > > Musachy Barroso wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Any news

Re: 2.1 build

good question . . . Musachy Barroso wrote: > > Hi all, > > Any news on the 2.1 build? Is anyone looking into it? > > regards > musachy > > -- > "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd > > - > To unsubs