Am Mo, den 09.08.2004 schrieb Height, Jason um 0:10:
After 2.5.1 and the copy of the HSSF branch to the head, It would be
nice to apply the patches that people have been supplying. There are a
number on the bug list that could be applied, or parts of which could be
applied.
Thoughts?
Sure,
At 02:35 PM 5/08/2004, you wrote:
Ideally the HEAD-based release would contain Glen's latest changes.
However, if 1. and 2. take too long it would be better to make a 2.5.1
immediately and a 2.6 release later (but not too late).
2.5.1 is essentially good to go as it is so my plan is to put it up.
,
Chris Wakefield
Avik Sengupta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
08/05/04 10:40 AM
Please respond to POI Developers List
To:
POI Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:
Plans etc (was Re: [VOTE] POI 2.5.1 release )
Glen,
Thanks for setting the agenda.
I agree
Am Do, den 05.08.2004 schrieb Danny Mui um 1:17:
The perf branch should still be a target to convert to, but I agree that
things are stagnating and drifting too far apart.
It seems we have consensus on these items:
1. From the HEAD fork a new performance branch, say, HSSF_PERF,
containing the
Glen,
Thanks for setting the agenda.
I agree that no. 4. isnt really an option.
Option 1 is getting more and more difficult each day. Till about the 2.5
delivery, most changes were getting backported. But I think some recent
fixes havent been. And I think it is infeasible to expect outside
AM
Please respond to POI Developers List
To:
POI Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:
Plans etc (was Re: [VOTE] POI 2.5.1 release )
Glen,
Thanks for setting the agenda.
I agree that no. 4. isnt really an option.
Option 1 is getting more and more difficult each day. Till about
:
Subject:
Plans etc (was Re: [VOTE] POI 2.5.1 release )
Glen,
Thanks for setting the agenda.
I agree that no. 4. isnt really an option.
Option 1 is getting more and more difficult each day. Till about the 2.5
delivery, most changes were getting backported. But I think some recent
fixes havent been
