Emmanuel,
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 14:41 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> I'll start preparing a release soon. The current state is good enough
> for a release, the remaining issues can be postponed to CLI 1.3.
I agree, but I don't think I qualify for a vote :-)
> I'd like to release a "long lived"
I'll start preparing a release soon. The current state is good enough
for a release, the remaining issues can be postponed to CLI 1.3.
I'd like to release a "long lived" release candidate (at least 2-3
weeks) before pushing the final release. This will let some time to the
projects using CLI t
Emmanuel,
Is there a way of triggering the CLI 1.2 release process? Given that
there are significant changes over 1.1 and the idea of a 1.3 is not
rejected, I think moving to a 1.2 release sooner rather than later would
be useful. The only threat I can see is if 1.2 has the same blocking
errors
Russel Winder a écrit :
As far as I can see changing from 1.0 to 1.2-SNAPSHOT does not cause any
problem for the Groovy build and test. However, it seems that no unit
tests were added for the problems raised by 1.1 so I cannot present
evidence that 1.2 solves the problems. What I can say is th
Paul Cager a écrit :
By the way, are we all agreed that the "-D" type of option should be
"hasArg" rather than "hasArgs"? I.e. each "-D" option takes only a
single argument, although you can, of course, have multiple "-D"
options. I think that is the intention of Emmanuel's patch and is
cons
Emmanuel Bourg schrieb:
I wouldn't push for a 2.0 release in the current state, I'm not
convinced by the design of the new API. It seems more reasonable to
stabilize the 1.x branch before considering a major refactoring with CLI2.
As I understand it, CLI2 is currently in use. So there are peop
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 19:43 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> I wouldn't push for a 2.0 release in the current state, I'm not
> convinced by the design of the new API. It seems more reasonable to
> stabilize the 1.x branch before considering a major refactoring with CLI2.
Given that there is no rus
I wouldn't push for a 2.0 release in the current state, I'm not
convinced by the design of the new API. It seems more reasonable to
stabilize the 1.x branch before considering a major refactoring with CLI2.
Emmanuel Bourg
Niall Pemberton a écrit :
I saw from the following blog[1] that Hadoop
Henri Yandell a écrit :
Looks like a 1.2 is ready to release. At least there are no open
issues related to 1.x.
I agree, at this point we need more feedback on the changes applied
recently from the main projects using CLI. The documentation
improvements would be great but that should not blo
Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 16:02 +0100, Niall Pemberton wrote:
I saw from the following blog[1] that Hadoop is using CLI
2.0-SNAPSHOT, but they're considering rolling back (HADOOP-3676[2])
because of the uncertainty wrt CLI 2.0. Seems the most recent
discussion was inconclusive:
Tobias Bocanegra wrote:
On 7/13/08, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell schrieb:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Russel Winder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 16:02 +0100, Niall Pemberton wrote:
I saw from the following blog[1] that Hadoop is using CLI
2
On 7/13/08, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henri Yandell schrieb:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Russel Winder
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 16:02 +0100, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > >
> > > > I saw from the following blog[1] that Hadoop is using CL
Henri Yandell schrieb:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Russel Winder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 16:02 +0100, Niall Pemberton wrote:
I saw from the following blog[1] that Hadoop is using CLI
2.0-SNAPSHOT, but they're considering rolling back (HADOOP-3676[2])
because of the
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 15:34 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Looks like a 1.2 is ready to release. At least there are no open
> issues related to 1.x.
CLI-147 is still open and marked as to be fixed in 1.2.0.
CLI-137 has been marked as fixed, but I am not convinced it is -- but I
am basing this on
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Russel Winder
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 16:02 +0100, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> I saw from the following blog[1] that Hadoop is using CLI
>> 2.0-SNAPSHOT, but they're considering rolling back (HADOOP-3676[2])
>> because of the uncertainty wrt
On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 16:02 +0100, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> I saw from the following blog[1] that Hadoop is using CLI
> 2.0-SNAPSHOT, but they're considering rolling back (HADOOP-3676[2])
> because of the uncertainty wrt CLI 2.0. Seems the most recent
> discussion was inconclusive:
>
> http://mark
I saw from the following blog[1] that Hadoop is using CLI
2.0-SNAPSHOT, but they're considering rolling back (HADOOP-3676[2])
because of the uncertainty wrt CLI 2.0. Seems the most recent
discussion was inconclusive:
http://markmail.org/message/ssh3mgwngpr4m5jz
I guess the lack of decision on 2.0
17 matches
Mail list logo
