Successful 1.2.0 testing

Hi Everyone, Had time to download Struts 1.2.0 Test Build (2/25/04) and test our application this morning. Windows 2000 J2EE 1.3 WebSphere Application Server 4.0 (Servlet 2.2) and WAS 5.0 (Servlet 2.3). Basically all works fine ... only one glitch concerning a DynaActionForm. My application

Re: Struts Change Tracking (Re: [ANNOUNCE] Struts 1.2.0 Test Build available)

08:10:53 -0600, Joe Germuska wrote: > At 9:05 AM +0100 2/27/04, nicolas De Loof wrote: >> Can you please post a "what's new" about this release to help me >> make my boss agree to use Struts 1.2.0 for new projects ? >> > > Are committers familiar with the Mav

Re: [OT] Maven (was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Struts 1.2.0 Test Build available)

There's another way to handle these as well. Following the properties processing rule that Joe had quoted. You will notice that everything goes through you build.properties So if you define a version in your build.properties you can access it in your dependencies. For example: //build.properties

Re: [OT] Maven (was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Struts 1.2.0 Test Build available)

that lets me define the individual versions of *all* dependencies for *all* projects so that I can say, for example, use *this* version of commons-beanutils and *that* version of commons-digester to build ***all*** of the components that are going in to my overall exectable. I am *so* not interest

Re: [OT] Maven (was Re: [ANNOUNCE] Struts 1.2.0 Test Build available)

Quoting Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Oh yeah, also I can't go back from having versioned JAR in my lib > directories. I suspect that's a matter of taste too, but I'll take > the overhead of pruning old JARs when new versions are deployed over > the mystery of knowing which versions your

Choosing 1.2.0 (Re: [ANNOUNCE] Struts 1.2.0 Test Build available)

At 9:05 AM +0100 2/27/04, nicolas De Loof wrote: Can you please post a "what's new" about this release to help me make my boss agree to use Struts 1.2.0 for new projects ? Oh yes, this also reminds me: I think we need to be on guard for a lot of questions like this. Martin descri

Struts Change Tracking (Re: [ANNOUNCE] Struts 1.2.0 Test Build available)

At 9:05 AM +0100 2/27/04, nicolas De Loof wrote: Can you please post a "what's new" about this release to help me make my boss agree to use Struts 1.2.0 for new projects ? Are committers familiar with the Maven changes.xml file/plugin? If it exists, it can be used to generate

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Struts 1.2.0 Test Build available

quot;Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 27 February, 2004 13:35 Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Struts 1.2.0 Test Build available Can you please post a "what's new" about this release to help me make my boss agree to use Struts 1.2.0 for new projects ? Nico.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Struts 1.2.0 Test Build available

Download and see the Release Notes :) - Original Message - From: "nicolas De Loof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 27 February, 2004 13:35 Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Struts 1.2.0 Test Build available >

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Struts 1.2.0 Test Build available

Can you please post a "what's new" about this release to help me make my boss agree to use Struts 1.2.0 for new projects ? Nico. Martin Cooper a écrit : The Struts 1.2.0 Test Build is now available here: http://www.apache.org/~martinc/struts/v1.2.0/ This is the first Struts b

RE: 1.2.0 uploaded - Take 2

> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Again, I'd appreciate it if someone could verify the integrity of the > files, and let me know if they're OK. Hopefully, this one > will be OK and I can go ahead and announce it to both lists. FWIW, the files in the .zip binary file work fine for

RE: 1.2.0 uploaded - Take 2

... and the source builds fine on my machine. Hubert Rabago --- Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Again, I'd appreciate it if someone could verify the integrity of the > > files, and let me know if they're OK. Hopefully, this one > > wi

[ANNOUNCE] Struts 1.2.0 Test Build available

The Struts 1.2.0 Test Build is now available here: http://www.apache.org/~martinc/struts/v1.2.0/ This is the first Struts build being made available following the same test-and-release process that has been used successfully by the Tomcat team for some time. It is *not* an official Apache

RE: 1.2.0 uploaded - Take 2

:25 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: 1.2.0 uploaded - Take 2 > > > I've just finished uploading a new build that includes > Struts-EL. (And none too soon, given the huge thunderstorm > going on here right now...) It's in the same location as > b

1.2.0 uploaded - Take 2

ils because it is trying to include welcome.html, > > but there is no such file. > > 2b) fails because there are no images in the struts-examples > > web app at all. > > 2c) fails with a lot of nulls in the test table. > > > > It looks like all of these are proba

Struts Haiku ( RE: 1.2.0 uploaded (Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen))

> From: Tim Chen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Haiku Hint: > Gentoo rule supreme. > Suse should be a girls name. > Red Hat is for Fools. http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?StrutsHaiku -Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: 1.2.0 uploaded (Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen)

the struts-examples web app at all. 2c) fails with a lot of nulls in the test table. It looks like all of these are probably issues with the test app itself, rather than the tags, so I'm not overly concerned, and suspect we probably should go ahead with 1.2.0 anyway, especially since we're

RE: 1.2.0 uploaded (Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen)

e a look when I get home tonight. And thanks for catching it! -- Martin Cooper > > I tried 1.2.0 in AppFuse and all tests pass! Nice work gents. I didn't > even have to modify any files - my last Struts update was December 2, > 2003. > > Matt > > > -Orig

RE: 1.2.0 uploaded (Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen) - watch out for ActionErrors -> ActionMessages in validation code

urn false; } return true; } (I also corrected a small bug at line 44 of the old method where value1=null, value2='some text' would validate ok!). Best regards, Roberto -Original Message- From: Matt Raible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 February 2004 09:1

RE: 1.2.0 uploaded (Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen)

The first thing I noticed is that struts-el is missing from the download. I used the one I had from a nightly build in December and it didn't seem to cause conflicts. I tried 1.2.0 in AppFuse and all tests pass! Nice work gents. I didn't even have to modify any files - my last Str

1.2.0 uploaded (Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen)

;m not overly concerned, and suspect we probably > should go ahead with 1.2.0 anyway, especially since we're not claiming > it's a final release. > > Once I get the build uploaded, I'll ask other folks to take it for a spin > before sending out an announcement. >

Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:26:47 -0800, Paul Sundling wrote: > Taking a step back, here is how some other projects are dealing > with this issue: The example I'd be most willing to follow would be the one set by the httpd project: IMHO, these are the true "gia

Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen

e - From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:46 AM Subject: Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:23:08 -0800, Paul Sundling wrote: > I should probably still remov

Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen

Ted, I want to start off by saying I look up to you and respect you. I don't consider myself an equal to you or several of the other giants on this project, but I do consider myself part of this community now. In fact, earlier today I changed my email address from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL

Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:23:08 -0800, Paul Sundling wrote: > I should probably still remove tags from the docs and > consolidate those into the volunteers page also. I'm afraid that our volunteers page is subject to the same considerations as the author tags. :( * Low hanging suit. In the unlikel

Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen

ss in the core distrubution with an author tag. It was added after I swept the main source. I am generally pretty detailed. :) So I'm raring to go on those. Let me know when I can start working on patches for these items. Paul Sundling After 1.2.0 is out of the gate, we can apply Paul'

Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen

k that tonight, > but I'd be happy if someone else beat me to it. ;-) > > Once I get the build uploaded (grr!), I'd like someone to try out the > Cactus tests and make sure that most of them, at least, run OK before I > send out an announcement. > > After 1.2.0 is o

Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen

To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Ted Husted wrote: > > > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:38:24 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote: > > > Actually, with this new release strategy, where should the > > > an

Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen

problems and not actual bugs in the core. I'll try to check that tonight, but I'd be happy if someone else beat me to it. ;-) Once I get the build uploaded (grr!), I'd like someone to try out the Cactus tests and make sure that most of them, at least, run OK before I send out an

Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen

h a lot of nulls in the test table. > > > It looks like all of these are probably issues with the test app > itself, rather than the tags, so I'm not overly concerned, and > suspect we probably should go ahead with 1.2.0 anyway, especially > since we're not claiming it's a

Re: 1.2.0 is tagged and frozen

e tags, so I'm not overly concerned, and suspect we probably should go ahead with 1.2.0 anyway, especially since we're not claiming it's a final release. Once I get the build uploaded, I'll ask other folks to take it for a spin before sending out an announcement. Actually, with th

1.2.0 is tagged and frozen

Please hold off on all checkins until the release is done. Thanks. -- Martin Cooper - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

David Graham, I finished 3 minutes ahead of my estimated time. :) Unfortunately, it's taking forever (30 minutes so far) to upload the patch file, which is just shy of 2 megs. Would it speed things up any to send you a copy directly, while it's uploading? I thought I'd ask since we're on a

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

s Developers List' > Subject: Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan > > I woke up earlier than planned (I'm on a strange sleep schedule) and > Robert Leland got me a copy of the tools, which saved me a bunch of time > since my own tool was only 40% done. I used the java one,

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

something I should finish well before the cutoff, leaving some a couple hours for a committer to check it out. Paul Sundling Martin Cooper wrote: -Original Message- From: Paul Sundling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 7:52 AM To: Struts Developers List

RE: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 8:10 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Karr, Davi

RE: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

> -Original Message- > From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 11:50 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan > > > > > Just a few things: > >> > >> * What about the

RE: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

> -Original Message- > From: Paul Sundling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 7:52 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan > > > David Karr emailed me, so I'll take care of the licenses this weekend.

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

> -Original Message- > From: Karr, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 12:46 AM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: RE: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan > > Does this involve changing the file header comment to replace the

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

t;>>David > >>> > >>> > >>>--- "Karr, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Does this involve changing the file header comment to replace the > >>>>exis

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

exactly what needs to change, I can get that done this weekend. -Original Message- From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:12 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan At 1:49 PM -0600 2/20/04, Joe Germuska wrote:

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

exactly what needs to change, I can get that > >>done this weekend. > >> > >>-Original Message- > >>From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:12 PM > >>To: Struts Developers List > >>Su

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

end. -Original Message- From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:12 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan At 1:49 PM -0600 2/20/04, Joe Germuska wrote: > Just a few things: * What about the new Apache license?

RE: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

y, February 20, 2004 12:12 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan > > > At 1:49 PM -0600 2/20/04, Joe Germuska wrote: > >> > Just a few things: > >>> > >>> * What about the new Apache license? Technically, it doe

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

at done this weekend. -Original Message- From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:12 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan At 1:49 PM -0600 2/20/04, Joe Germuska wrote: > Just a few things: * What about the new Apac

RE: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

is weekend. -Original Message- From: Joe Germuska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:12 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan At 1:49 PM -0600 2/20/04, Joe Germuska wrote: >> > Just a few things: >>> >>>

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

e offering to do it a few weeks ago? I should amend this: + 0 from me; I don't have time to do it now, and probably won't soon enough that I'd want to delay 1.2.0 until it gets done. Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com "Imagine

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

> Just a few things: * What about the new Apache license? Technically, it doesn't need to change if we release before March 1st, but we're mighty close to that, so > perhaps we should switch now? +1 from me too; wasn't someone offering to do it a few weeks ago? At this point I don't see any r

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

release, please proceed. But I wouldn't feel qualified to do that myself (since I'm not a user of those packages). Moving past 1.2.0, we might want to create a "opt" or "optional" products with their own release cycles, such as struts-opt-el, struts-opt-jsf, and struts-o

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

--- Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Ted Husted wrote: > > > Assuming it was all right with everyone, I'm setting the freeze date > for 1.2.0 for tomorrow (Saturday) night. > > > > I'm updating the release plan. There ar

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Ted Husted wrote: > Assuming it was all right with everyone, I'm setting the freeze date for 1.2.0 for > tomorrow (Saturday) night. > > I'm updating the release plan. There are still a lot of enhancement patches that we > haven't applied,

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

At 9:37 AM -0500 2/20/04, Ted Husted wrote: Assuming it was all right with everyone, I'm setting the freeze date for 1.2.0 for tomorrow (Saturday) night. I'm updating the release plan. There are still a lot of enhancement patches that we haven't applied, but I think those can wai

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

Assuming it was all right with everyone, I'm setting the freeze date for 1.2.0 for tomorrow (Saturday) night. I'm updating the release plan. There are still a lot of enhancement patches that we haven't applied, but I think those can wait for later in the 1.2.x series. I do i

Re: 1.2.0

Last week was a wash, first a crisis, then I was traveling, and then it was SuperSunday. Hopefully, I can get back to the grind this week :) I'll be applying and testing the patch for the module parameter as well as "Clean way to add parameters", and I think that should be e

Re: 1.2.0

Getting there. We should be able to mop the the module enhancements this week, and then roll it. On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:39:18 -0800, Vic Cekvenich wrote: > Is there any news on 1.2? > .V > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL

1.2.0

Is there any news on 1.2? .V - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Joe Germuska wrote: > At 9:38 AM -0500 12/22/03, Robert Leland wrote: > >I believe Joe said though all unit test ran they **didn't** all > >pass, I believe it was like 66% > >passed. > > Hi, all... I've been at my in-laws for the holidays and have > intermittent net access. >

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

At 9:38 AM -0500 12/22/03, Robert Leland wrote: I believe Joe said though all unit test ran they **didn't** all pass, I believe it was like 66% passed. Hi, all... I've been at my in-laws for the holidays and have intermittent net access. I turned out my major ant/cactus problem was that Ant was

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

I am now testing nightly and sample wars for what it's worth. All wars work (once over lightly). Somone did a nice job on localizing validation war. bP works (which uses jstl 1.1, struts menu 2.1, etc.) -Validation example complains in console about -I wish most excetions were logged w/ e.getCua

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

lists until it has been voted Beta/GA or better. Side effect is that this is a great way to introduce 1.2.0 to users as ... it's released like Tomcat releases, but not really designated, and not released like 1.1 was with beta, rc1 I am now testing nightly and sample wars for what it&#x

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

some point. That was using the same version of cactus used to test 1.2.0 -Rob * Release notes updated * Issues w/o solutions marked LATER * Webapps tested on TC 4.1 (one issue) * JUnit tests run In the Validator example, we're suppose to be able to change selected validations for a

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

I haven't had a chance to catch up completely, but the outage this weekend suggests an after-Christmas 1.2.0 release, unfortunately - at least, if I need to be involved. (If not, great - go for it!) -- Martin Cooper On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Ted Husted wrote: > OK, here's what we have

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

e for now, as we are moving to Maven anyway, and have Joe apply his Maven-Cactus patch. I could apply the patches sometime this week, but I'm leary of doing so when I can't get the Cactus tests to run on my own. If we resolve the Cactus thing quickly, do we want to release what we have as

Post 1.2.0 [was 1.2.0 Release Plan]

. Post 1.2.0, I'd like to look at revamping the website (keeping Maven in mind of course) to separate the "core" documentation from the "taglib" documentation (which is mainly the Developer Guides anyway). We should probably add an area for "contrib" as well. (A

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

t; > On a related topic, would anyone call any of these "showstoppers". No, I think we can release as planned. David > > -Ted. > > Ted Husted wrote: > > I've amended the date on the (now venerable) 1.2.0 release plan for > this > > weekend. > &

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

've amended the date on the (now venerable) 1.2.0 release plan for this weekend. http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/proposals/release-plan_1_2_0.html I believe the release notes are in good shape now. I already marched through most of the stale 1.0/1.1 tickets, and can mop up the rest in sho

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

Ted Husted wrote: If we use the current Validator 1.1.1 JAR, and it becomes the final release, then we could vote on whether Struts 1.2.0 can also be a "final" or "General Availability" release. If you recall I believe we came to consensus on struts-dev that Validator can

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

+ 1 on the release plan... Note that I've left room in the release plan for the idea of multiple managers. If someone were up for sheparding the tests, especially the example application testing, I'd welcome the help. I may as well take this moment to fess up to my remedial status trying to run

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Ted Husted wrote: +1 > I've amended the date on the (now venerable) 1.2.0 release plan for this > weekend. > > http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/proposals/release-plan_1_2_0.html > > I believe the release notes are in good shape now. I already marche

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

products using this versioning/release system don't spend as much time making sure it's bullet proof. Struts 1.2.0 isn't much different than 1.1 so it wouldn't surprise me if we reached GA before 5 or 6 point releases. David > > -Ted. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: &

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

If we use the current Validator 1.1.1 JAR, and it becomes the final release, then we could vote on whether Struts 1.2.0 can also be a "final" or "General Availability" release. If this Validator 1.1.1 JAR does not make final, then the best we could do is mark ours would be

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

Clarifying the voting guidelines is an active thread on the PMC list, so we might just want to muddle along best we can for now. Regardless of what we do for 1.2.1, we have called for a vote on a release plan for 1.2.0. The plan does call for a vote before classifying the Alpha as a Beta or

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

Were we still planning on using Validator 1.1.1 when it is released ? It's getting a little confusing, since I removed it, and called for a release Vote. The vote isn't scheduled to complete until Sunday Noon. And Struts source will be frozed at Saturday Midnight. -Rob

[Validator] was Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

;s fine > with me), or withdraw (if there was some > bad problem). > > * Announce to the world and do the usual process > of distributing the bits. > > The same approach would work for us, and IMHO meets the Jakarta requirements > with one additional

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

he bits. The same approach would work for us, and IMHO meets the Jakarta requirements with one additional wrinkle -- the Jakarta PMC needs the opportunity to vote on releases as well, to be consistent with the current ASF reqirements. +1 on the 1.2.0 release plan, by the way. > -- > Martin Cooper

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

+1 > -Original Message- > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 05:48 PM > To: 'Struts Developers List' > Subject: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan > > I've amended the date on the (now venerable) 1.2.0 release p

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

we wouldn't have to vote on a plan again until we get to 1.3.0 or > 2.0.0. > > The rationale is that starting a new series (1.2.0 versus 1.1.0) is a > decision upon which we should have a formal consensus. After that, > issuing additional point releases in the same series can be &q

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

The rationale is that starting a new series (1.2.0 versus 1.1.0) is a decision upon which we should have a formal consensus. After that, issuing additional point releases in the same series can be "business as usual" . Of course, this is just a vote on the plan. Once we roll the

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

ar, the Jakarta rules require a vote, while the HTTPD rules do not. I suspect that this vote may be sufficient, but I'll check when I get a chance. -- Martin Cooper On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Ted Husted wrote: > I've amended the date on the (now venerable) 1.2.0 release plan fo

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

Ted Husted wrote: . If someone were up for sheparding the tests, especially the example application testing, If testing example apps, means not much more than see if the war files work and browse it, I will do it. (of course some of them had problems before, like tiles example, but not sure wh

Re: [VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

+1 David --- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've amended the date on the (now venerable) 1.2.0 release plan for this > > weekend. > > http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/proposals/release-plan_1_2_0.html > > I believe the release notes are in g

[VOTE] 1.2.0 Release Plan

I've amended the date on the (now venerable) 1.2.0 release plan for this weekend. http://jakarta.apache.org/struts/proposals/release-plan_1_2_0.html I believe the release notes are in good shape now. I already marched through most of the stale 1.0/1.1 tickets, and can mop up the re

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

> As for 1.2.0 testing, I would suggest we do TC 3.3.1a and 4.1.28, Ooops, 4.1.29 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

If the Validation 1.1.1 release is imminent, the best thing might be to just let that be the Struts 1.2.0 trigger. If it happens a few days later, then so be it. As it stands, TC3 is our 2.2/1.2 benchmark, and we don't want to start cutting corners. Of course, if anyone wanted to step

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

t; would vote on the quality > at a later date, once it has been a bit. > > -Rob Yes, if we were able to include a validator 1.1.1 and it later went to GA, then our release could go to GA too. Though, I wouldn't be optimistic about 1.2.0 going GA, but anything's possible :)

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

the quality > at a later date, once it has been a bit. > > -Rob Yes, if we were able to include a validator 1.1.1 and it later went to GA, then our release could go to GA too. Though, I wouldn't be optimistic about 1.2.0 going GA, but anything's possible :) We could also just do

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

t my mop and bucket ready. ;-) -- Martin Cooper > > -T. > > Martin Cooper wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Ted Husted wrote: > > > > > >>With the long weekend coming up, I was thinking of rolling up my sleeves > >>and doing whatever needs to be done to cut 1.

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

Brandon Goodin wrote: When are submitted patches going to be reviewed and incorporated? There seems to be several out there that are useful. Which patches are you suggesting, and have you tested any of them yourself or have any comments about suggested solutions ? ---

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

Ted Husted wrote: AFAIK, it's a decent milestone already. :) I believe to get it ready for "prime time" as a General Availability release will mainly be a matter of updating the documentation. But, the best way to generate some interest in doing that may be to publish a milestone release. Als

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

oming up, I was thinking of rolling up my sleeves and doing whatever needs to be done to cut 1.2.0. Funny you should bring that up. I'm planning on spending a good chunk of this upcoming break in Apache land myself. Anyone one aware of any serious showstoppers? No, but then I have a lot of c

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Ted Husted wrote: > With the long weekend coming up, I was thinking of rolling up my sleeves > and doing whatever needs to be done to cut 1.2.0. Funny you should bring that up. I'm planning on spending a good chunk of this upcoming break in Apache land myself.

RE: 1.2.0 Resurrected

of rolling up > my sleeves > and doing whatever needs to be done to cut 1.2.0. > > Anyone one aware of any serious showstoppers? > > While under the current scheme, any release has the potential to make > the General Availability grade, I would anticipate that 1.2.0 >

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

When are submitted patches going to be reviewed and incorporated? There seems to be several out there that are useful. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/25/2003 5:06:52 AM >>> With the long weekend coming up, I was thinking of rolling up my sleeves and doing whatever needs to be

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

ot; -Tim Ted Husted wrote: With the long weekend coming up, I was thinking of rolling up my sleeves and doing whatever needs to be done to cut 1.2.0. Anyone one aware of any serious showstoppers? While under the current scheme, any release has the potential to make the General Availability grade

RE: 1.2.0 Resurrected

Would it be possible to get my patch for 12342 applied in the 1.2.0 release? http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12342 -- Norm Deane MIS Consultant Vanderbilt University (615) 322-7855 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PRO

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With the long weekend coming up, I was thinking of rolling up my sleeves > > and doing whatever needs to be done to cut 1.2.0. > > Anyone one aware of any serious showstoppers? Nope, the commits have been relatively infreque

Re: 1.2.0 Resurrected

What would need to be done to get it to "milestone" -Tim Ted Husted wrote: With the long weekend coming up, I was thinking of rolling up my sleeves and doing whatever needs to be done to cut 1.2.0. Anyone one aware of any serious showstoppers? While under the current scheme, any r

1.2.0 Resurrected

With the long weekend coming up, I was thinking of rolling up my sleeves and doing whatever needs to be done to cut 1.2.0. Anyone one aware of any serious showstoppers? While under the current scheme, any release has the potential to make the General Availability grade, I would anticipate that