On 7 February 2012 12:44, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 01:24 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
>>
>> On 02/07/2012 12:59 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7 February 2012 10:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
I'll tag and prepare 1.0.9 RC later today.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you also do the Maven jars?
>>>
>>
>> S
On 02/07/2012 01:24 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 02/07/2012 12:59 PM, sebb wrote:
On 7 February 2012 10:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
I'll tag and prepare 1.0.9 RC later today.
Can you also do the Maven jars?
Sure, but have no idea how to do that.
nevermind. I RTFM :)
Cheers
--
^TM
--
On 02/07/2012 12:59 PM, sebb wrote:
On 7 February 2012 10:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
I'll tag and prepare 1.0.9 RC later today.
Can you also do the Maven jars?
Sure, but have no idea how to do that.
Regards
--
^TM
-
To uns
On 7 February 2012 10:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 09:10 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 6 February 2012 17:45, Mladen Turk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm, right. I'll revert the patch. There should be no surprises
>>> or new features with 1.0.x branch.
>>> Think that --foo=a ++foo=b ++foo=c should be
On 02/06/2012 09:10 PM, sebb wrote:
On 6 February 2012 17:45, Mladen Turk wrote:
Hmm, right. I'll revert the patch. There should be no surprises
or new features with 1.0.x branch.
Think that --foo=a ++foo=b ++foo=c should behave like
If there was foo set, set to a b c, not add a b c.
Agreed;
On 6 February 2012 17:45, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 05:16 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 6 February 2012 16:05, Mladen Turk wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/06/2012 05:02 PM, sebb wrote:
On 6 February 2012 15:25, Mladen Turk wrote:
>
>
>
> I don't, but since its there, so
On 02/06/2012 05:16 PM, sebb wrote:
On 6 February 2012 16:05, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 02/06/2012 05:02 PM, sebb wrote:
On 6 February 2012 15:25, Mladen Turkwrote:
I don't, but since its there, so be it.
OK, in that case what's needed is to decide whether the current
behaviour should b
On 6 February 2012 16:05, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 05:02 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 6 February 2012 15:25, Mladen Turk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't, but since its there, so be it.
>>>
>>
>> OK, in that case what's needed is to decide whether the current
>> behaviour should be fixed and docu
On 02/06/2012 05:02 PM, sebb wrote:
On 6 February 2012 15:25, Mladen Turk wrote:
I don't, but since its there, so be it.
OK, in that case what's needed is to decide whether the current
behaviour should be fixed and documented or just documented.
You mean with DAEMON-240? Resolved just ab
On 6 February 2012 15:25, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 04:15 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 6 February 2012 15:06, Mladen Turk wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/06/2012 03:55 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>
>
> Sure, but the docs can always be updated at any time.
> We don't have to wait for a release
On 02/06/2012 04:15 PM, sebb wrote:
On 6 February 2012 15:06, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 02/06/2012 03:55 PM, sebb wrote:
Sure, but the docs can always be updated at any time.
We don't have to wait for a release or something to update our web site.
That particular JIRA could involve code chang
On 6 February 2012 15:06, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 03:55 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, but the docs can always be updated at any time.
>>> We don't have to wait for a release or something to update our web site.
>>
>>
>> That particular JIRA could involve code changes as well.
>> Als
On 02/06/2012 03:55 PM, sebb wrote:
Sure, but the docs can always be updated at any time.
We don't have to wait for a release or something to update our web site.
That particular JIRA could involve code changes as well.
Also, we include the site source in the archive.
Right, this is probabl
On 6 February 2012 14:43, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 12:48 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 6 February 2012 10:12, Mladen Turk wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/06/2012 09:30 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Is there anything else we should consider before doing that?
>>
>>
>> I've just raised DAEMO
On 02/06/2012 12:48 PM, sebb wrote:
On 6 February 2012 10:12, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 02/06/2012 09:30 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Is there anything else we should consider before doing that?
I've just raised DAEMON-240; it would be good if the docs could be
updated accordingly.
Sure, but the
On 6 February 2012 10:12, Mladen Turk wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 09:30 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is there anything else we should consider before doing that?
I've just raised DAEMON-240; it would be good if the docs could be
updated accordingly.
Also, is it possible to resolve DAEMON-234 easil
On 02/06/2012 09:30 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Is there anything else we should consider before doing that?
Please note that the sources are inside branches/1.0.x not trunk!
(Just in case someone forgot that we are going to release 1.0.x
versions from 1.0.x branch from now on)
Regards
--
^TM
-
On 06/02/2012 08:30, Mladen Turk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are few important bug fixes for 1.0.8 so I plan to push
> for a 1.0.9 bugfix release later this week.
Excellent. I'll hold off on a Tomcat 7.0.x release until this is available.
Cheers,
Mark
---
Hi,
There are few important bug fixes for 1.0.8 so I plan to push
for a 1.0.9 bugfix release later this week.
Is there anything else we should consider before doing that?
sebb, you always have something to say at vote time, so here is
the chance to do that before ;)
Regards
--
^TM
---
19 matches
Mail list logo