No update at this point afaik. I removed the "fix for" version that was
1.1.1. If we don't get it done in time for 1.1.2 then I'll move it to 1.2.
Colm.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
ilgro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Gents,
> any news about this?
>
> Regards.
>
> On 02/
Gents,
any news about this?
Regards.
On 02/04/2013 14:53, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
Sounds good thanks!
Colm.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
wrote:
On 02/04/2013 13:55, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
Hi Francesco,
We have not been able to sort out the OSGi issues as
Sounds good thanks!
Colm.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
wrote:
> On 02/04/2013 13:55, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> > Hi Francesco,
> >
> > We have not been able to sort out the OSGi issues as of yet. One of the
> > problems seems to be a conflict between the different v
On 02/04/2013 13:55, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> Hi Francesco,
>
> We have not been able to sort out the OSGi issues as of yet. One of the
> problems seems to be a conflict between the different versions of Spring
> used by Syncope + CXF, which is resulting in the exceptions reported in
> SYNCOPE-
Hi Francesco,
We have not been able to sort out the OSGi issues as of yet. One of the
problems seems to be a conflict between the different versions of Spring
used by Syncope + CXF, which is resulting in the exceptions reported in
SYNCOPE-337.
For the moment I propose moving SYNCOPE-337 to 1.1.1.
Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote
> Hi Francesco,
>
> I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they are
> not breaking anything. I would prefer to leave things as they are but not
> claim full OSGi support in the 1.1.0 release.
>
> I guess you are concerned that these issues will
> Hi Francesco,
>
> I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they are
> not breaking anything. I would prefer to leave things as they are but not
> claim full OSGi support in the 1.1.0 release.
>
> I guess you are concerned that these issues will hold up the 1.1.0 release
On 19/03/2013 16:33, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
Hi Francesco,
I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they are
not breaking anything.
They don't break anything as long as you don't use OSGi.
This of course does not apply to SYNCOPE-239 (e.g. OSGi support for the
clie
Hi Francesco,
I don't see why the merges for SYNCOPE-203 need to be reverted as they are
not breaking anything. I would prefer to leave things as they are but not
claim full OSGi support in the 1.1.0 release.
I guess you are concerned that these issues will hold up the 1.1.0 release
and so I prop
Il 19/03/2013 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
Hi all,
currently we have on trunk (e.g. 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT) a first OSGi support
for all modules as per SYNCOPE-203.
However, this seems not to be working (see SYNCOPE-337), even if
changing the build for generating MANIFEST.MF according to
On Mar 19, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
> Hi all,
> currently we have on trunk (e.g. 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT) a first OSGi support for all
> modules as per SYNCOPE-203.
>
> However, this seems not to be working (see SYNCOPE-337), even if changing the
> build for generating MANIFEST.M
Il giorno 19/mar/2013, alle ore 15.40, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
> Hi all,
> currently we have on trunk (e.g. 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT) a first OSGi support for all
> modules as per SYNCOPE-203.
>
> However, this seems not to be working (see SYNCOPE-337), even if changing the
> build for genera
12 matches
Mail list logo
