Discussion:
a couple of quick questions
Howard M. Lewis Ship
2002-12-22 13:31:28 UTC
Permalink
I think with all the shuffling of components around, we should do another beta to ensure things are shaken out. I think that beta should be a code freeze as well, and we should try to get to a release candidate.

I haven't stumbled over this problem with name/qualifiedName yet. As long as
1) You don't break the demos
2) You don't break the test suite
3) You extend the test suite to excercise the new code (as simple as creating some pages that displays their name and pageName).

I'm perfectly good with things.

I'm going on a ski trip and will be out of the loop (no e-mail) until friday. I would suggest you put together whatever code you want over the next few days and we can catch up, and vote on the next steps, friday.

Howard

----- Original Message -----
From: Mindbridge
To: Howard M. Lewis Ship
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 8:16 AM
Subject: a couple of quick questions


Hi Howard,

Will there be a new beta because of the getQualifiedName() issue?

I am asking because I would like to check in some major changes I have done with the Table's column rendering (backward compatible ones), and I am not sure that would be a good idea if there is no another beta. What do you think? This should have been ready earlier, but I did not like the previous design of the changes and sat back at drawing board.

With respect to getQualifiedName(), I personally think that it is a showstopper, but that it will be very easy fix using the renaming (having getName() and getPageName() instead of getQualifiedName() and getName()). If you want, I can do that -- it is a relatively simple matter, and will affect (directly or indirectly) very little code. The alternative way (implementing the current specs) would definitely require your attention, I think, since it has far reaching implications.

Best regards for now,
-mb
Andrew C. Oliver
2002-12-22 14:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Just a suggestion. I suggest CVS Branches as preferrable to code
freezes. You still need a code freeze just it only needs to last 5
minutes or so.
Post by Howard M. Lewis Ship
I think with all the shuffling of components around, we should do
another beta to ensure things are shaken out. I think that beta
should be a code freeze as well, and we should try to get to a release
candidate.
I haven't stumbled over this problem with name/qualifiedName yet. As long as
1) You don't break the demos
2) You don't break the test suite
3) You extend the test suite to excercise the new code (as simple as
creating some pages that displays their name and pageName).
I'm perfectly good with things.
I'm going on a ski trip and will be out of the loop (no e-mail) until
friday. I would suggest you put together whatever code you want over
the next few days and we can catch up, and vote on the next steps, friday.
Howard
----- Original Message -----
*Sent:* Sunday, December 22, 2002 8:16 AM
*Subject:* a couple of quick questions
Hi Howard,
Will there be a new beta because of the getQualifiedName() issue?
I am asking because I would like to check in some major changes I
have done with the Table's column rendering (backward compatible
ones), and I am not sure that would be a good idea if there is no
another beta. What do you think? This should have been ready
earlier, but I did not like the previous design of the changes and
sat back at drawing board.
With respect to getQualifiedName(), I personally think that it is
a showstopper, but that it will be very easy fix using the
renaming (having getName() and getPageName() instead of
getQualifiedName() and getName()). If you want, I can do that --
it is a relatively simple matter, and will affect (directly or
indirectly) very little code. The alternative way (implementing
the current specs) would definitely require your attention, I
think, since it has far reaching implications.
Best regards for now,
-mb
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Howard M. Lewis Ship
2002-12-22 16:03:49 UTC
Permalink
That's largely what we've been doing. I've been working in my own branch
filling in 2.4 features; MB has started doing the same. We can create
additional, personal, branches for developers that want to start coding in
2.4. I'm concerned about problems when we merge, but the (now, monstrous!)
test suite will help identify problems early.

My generally release practice has been to run the release script (takes
about 20 minutes to build a release ... mostly documentation), do a quick
verify of it, then label the code. I used to label, then build, and had
some surprises hit me during the build/verify.

I should update the contributor's guide to spell out how to perform a build;
I've recently checked in the necessary build.xml script (cause I kept losing
it!).

Anyway, last message for a while, I'm off to Sugarloaf/USA!

Howard


----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoliver-1oDqGaOF3Lkdnm+***@public.gmane.org>
To: "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hlship-***@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "Mindbridge" <mindbridgeweb-/***@public.gmane.org>; "Tapestry Contrib"
<tapestry-contrib-5NWGOfrQmneRv+***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: a couple of quick questions
Post by Andrew C. Oliver
Just a suggestion. I suggest CVS Branches as preferrable to code
freezes. You still need a code freeze just it only needs to last 5
minutes or so.
Post by Howard M. Lewis Ship
I think with all the shuffling of components around, we should do
another beta to ensure things are shaken out. I think that beta
should be a code freeze as well, and we should try to get to a release
candidate.
I haven't stumbled over this problem with name/qualifiedName yet. As long as
1) You don't break the demos
2) You don't break the test suite
3) You extend the test suite to excercise the new code (as simple as
creating some pages that displays their name and pageName).
I'm perfectly good with things.
I'm going on a ski trip and will be out of the loop (no e-mail) until
friday. I would suggest you put together whatever code you want over
the next few days and we can catch up, and vote on the next steps, friday.
Howard
----- Original Message -----
*Sent:* Sunday, December 22, 2002 8:16 AM
*Subject:* a couple of quick questions
Hi Howard,
Will there be a new beta because of the getQualifiedName() issue?
I am asking because I would like to check in some major changes I
have done with the Table's column rendering (backward compatible
ones), and I am not sure that would be a good idea if there is no
another beta. What do you think? This should have been ready
earlier, but I did not like the previous design of the changes and
sat back at drawing board.
With respect to getQualifiedName(), I personally think that it is
a showstopper, but that it will be very easy fix using the
renaming (having getName() and getPageName() instead of
getQualifiedName() and getName()). If you want, I can do that --
it is a relatively simple matter, and will affect (directly or
indirectly) very little code. The alternative way (implementing
the current specs) would definitely require your attention, I
think, since it has far reaching implications.
Best regards for now,
-mb
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Tapestry-contrib mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-contrib
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Andrew C. Oliver
2002-12-22 16:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Have fun. We hope to have Tapestry proposed and moved over to Apache
before you get back (haha)

;-)

-Andy
Post by Howard M. Lewis Ship
That's largely what we've been doing. I've been working in my own branch
filling in 2.4 features; MB has started doing the same. We can create
additional, personal, branches for developers that want to start coding in
2.4. I'm concerned about problems when we merge, but the (now, monstrous!)
test suite will help identify problems early.
My generally release practice has been to run the release script (takes
about 20 minutes to build a release ... mostly documentation), do a quick
verify of it, then label the code. I used to label, then build, and had
some surprises hit me during the build/verify.
I should update the contributor's guide to spell out how to perform a build;
I've recently checked in the necessary build.xml script (cause I kept losing
it!).
Anyway, last message for a while, I'm off to Sugarloaf/USA!
Howard
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: a couple of quick questions
Post by Andrew C. Oliver
Just a suggestion. I suggest CVS Branches as preferrable to code
freezes. You still need a code freeze just it only needs to last 5
minutes or so.
Post by Howard M. Lewis Ship
I think with all the shuffling of components around, we should do
another beta to ensure things are shaken out. I think that beta
should be a code freeze as well, and we should try to get to a release
candidate.
I haven't stumbled over this problem with name/qualifiedName yet. As long as
1) You don't break the demos
2) You don't break the test suite
3) You extend the test suite to excercise the new code (as simple as
creating some pages that displays their name and pageName).
I'm perfectly good with things.
I'm going on a ski trip and will be out of the loop (no e-mail) until
friday. I would suggest you put together whatever code you want over
the next few days and we can catch up, and vote on the next steps,
friday.
Post by Andrew C. Oliver
Post by Howard M. Lewis Ship
Howard
----- Original Message -----
*Sent:* Sunday, December 22, 2002 8:16 AM
*Subject:* a couple of quick questions
Hi Howard,
Will there be a new beta because of the getQualifiedName() issue?
I am asking because I would like to check in some major changes I
have done with the Table's column rendering (backward compatible
ones), and I am not sure that would be a good idea if there is no
another beta. What do you think? This should have been ready
earlier, but I did not like the previous design of the changes and
sat back at drawing board.
With respect to getQualifiedName(), I personally think that it is
a showstopper, but that it will be very easy fix using the
renaming (having getName() and getPageName() instead of
getQualifiedName() and getName()). If you want, I can do that --
it is a relatively simple matter, and will affect (directly or
indirectly) very little code. The alternative way (implementing
the current specs) would definitely require your attention, I
think, since it has far reaching implications.
Best regards for now,
-mb
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Tapestry-contrib mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-contrib
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Tapestry-contrib mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-contrib
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

Loading...