Matthew Peters wrote:
> I have just checked in some changes to the SDO C++ code (thanks, Pete
> Robbins) and a one-liner to one of the classes in the soap binding
> which I think fix 11012 and 11004. Both the wsdl and the soap messages
> now validate correctly with soapscope and Java Xerces, whi
On 14 Jun, 11:22, Caroline Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Peters wrote:
> > I have just checked in some changes to the SDO C++ code (thanks, Pete
> > Robbins) and a one-liner to one of the classes in the soap binding
> > which I think fix 11012 and 11004. Both the wsdl and the soap
Caroline,
a) Thanks, I have made a note on a postit and stuck on the top sheet
of my SCA for PHP todo - assign defects we find in XML parsing to C++
SDO *not* C++ DAS.
b) I am not sure if you are telling me that I need to do something
here. Is there something I need to do in future that I have n
Caroline,
Thanks for the reminder, I have changed the Tuscany defect 1297 to
closed.
I have made a note of the Tuscany level in our DUNLIN page here - I'll
remember to add it to the release notes.
I have just answered your post on 24th May - which I never spotted at
the time, apologies. There m
Matthew Peters wrote:
> b) I am not sure if you are telling me that I need to do something
> here. Is there something I need to do in future that I have not been
> doing?
It's fine now. It was something you didn't do for this particular bug -
which was in "feedback" (harsh turquoise) state at t
Matthew Peters wrote:
> I have just answered your post on 24th May - which I never spotted at
> the time, apologies. There must be another one I have missed since you
> say "either of my requests". Please point me at the one I have missed.
FWIW, it was in a reply sent 8 Jun to a private mail fro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think that creating the suggested tests is a good idea. I've seen
> several emails pass by about release process and have to confess that
> I don't remember the details. While I'm not a big fan of being too
> process oriented our build and release is sufficiently comp
+1 to this idea. In the context of this thread, if I could encourage
you to put you thoughts down about the bug filing and fixing process
that would be excellent.
Simon
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group
Hi Matthew,
Just been giving the release candidate you sent me a spin and having a
few small problems. I can easily fix what I've seen but I'm a little
confused about where to do it. I thought we released out of head but
head doesn't seem to be at 1.2.2.
Here are the things I'm seeing so far.
