Re: New year wish: please make a stable branch

From: Jake Fisher (fisherj..mail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 09 2006 - 08:58:40 EST

  • Next message: Mike Schrag: "Re: New year wish: please make a stable branch"

    Did anyone make available/find a copy of 2.0.86 to look at?

    ~jake

    On 1/6/06, Jake Fisher <fisherj..mail.com> wrote:
    >
    > I am using a slightly more recent build (2.0.91) than 2.0.84 so I am not
    > sure if these apply:
    >
    > - WoLips Tools-->Install has been disabled though I am not exactly sure
    > which build it became disabled on?
    > - WoComponent Editor/Wod Editor I am still pushing for 'protected'
    > members as well as public members being included in the auto-complete list
    > for Components. ( *WOL-195*<http://objectstyle.org/jira/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=WOL-195>)
    >
    >
    > Beyond that I am not sure without getting 2.0.84 reinstalled.
    >
    > Where can I find a zip/tar of 2.0.84?
    >
    > ~jake
    >
    >
    >
    > On 1/6/06, Mike Schrag <mschra..dimension.com> wrote:
    >
    > > If people are OK with 2.0.84 being the one, then we can definitely
    > > just make that the one.
    > >
    > > Also, I'm perfectly OK backing out the custom WTP plugin. It didn't
    > > really fix the problem entirely ANYWAY and it's always bugged me.
    > > That would at LEAST make us stock plugins (3.2M4 + WTP 1.0 + TPTP
    > > 4.x). But I do agree that if we don't put our foot down on SOME
    > > version, we'll always be playing this game. You are correct that the
    > > issue came up months ago of stabilizing, but then we kept moving
    > > forward and it never really came up again.
    > >
    > > So is everyone OK with 2.0.84 being the next stable build?
    > >
    > > Also, what do people think about repointing the main wolips website
    > > to just be the wiki? Overall it's got the more correct info I think
    > > and it's definitely easier to keep up-to-date (though it's slightly
    > > out now as of the 3.2M4 changeover).
    > >
    > > And lastly, I'm just curious what people perceive as the worst bugs
    > > as of right now? My personal hit list (in no particular order):
    > >
    > > 1) I have no idea how flattening works in the incremental builder --
    > > it always seems to put my web server resources one folder deeper than
    > > I expect
    > > 2) cmd-o doesn't work -- this makes me want to kill myself :)
    > > 3) building w/ full wod validation enabled gets SLOW (this is totally
    > > my fault ... we need to work on a caching layer for looking up
    > > related resources, or maybe Ulrich has one already and I just need to
    > > know how where it is)
    > > 4) Sync editor w/ Package Explorer doesn't work
    > > 5) Double clicking on an error in the Problems view doesn't
    > > immediately take you to the error. Double clicking a second time will.
    > >
    > > I think those are the ones that annoy me the most. Any other ones
    > > really get on peoples nerves so we can try to prioritize?
    > >
    > > By the way, if you are experience progressively degrading Eclipse
    > > performance on OS X, I opened a new bug about it at bugs.eclipse.org
    > > -- https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=122428 . Please
    > > post up there if it happens to you as well so they devs can get more
    > > info on the problem.
    > >
    > > ms
    > >
    > > On Jan 6, 2006, at 5:34 AM, mar..iffy-berlin.in-berlin.de wrote:
    > >
    > > > Hi,
    > > >
    > > > On Jan 5, 2006, at 4:25 PM, Anjo Krank wrote:
    > > >> while I would be the first one to welcome a stable release without
    > > >> a ton of beta dependencies, I'd guess that this won't happen. It's
    > > >> just too much work to downgrade the new features to 3.1 and with a
    > > >> few of them, this is not even possible.
    > > >> So the best bet is to wait out for 3.2 final and WTP final and
    > > >> then try to make a stable version.
    > > >
    > > > Yes, that would be nice. I just fear that this might not be done.
    > > > At least now we are in the same situation as half a year ago with
    > > > 3.1.1. At the point, Eclipse 3.1.0 was out, and 3.1.1 was still in
    > > > beta. The same day 3.1.1 was finally released, I installed the
    > > > latest WOLips and all its dependencies (which was 2.0.68 at the
    > > > time I think). And I hoped for a stable release of WOLips.
    > > >
    > > > And now we have lots of dependencies on 3.2beta, and a patched
    > > > plugin. And the hope, that once 3.2 is finally out and the wtp team
    > > > has incorporated our patches, that a stable version of WOLips will
    > > > finally be made? Maybe at that time everything depends on 3.3beta
    > > > of Eclipse? :)
    > > >
    > > >> Unless there is someone who volunteers to do all the backporting
    > > >> work...
    > > >
    > > > Well, there is no backporting required really. Just take the latest
    > > > release of WOLips which did not require 3.2M4 and no patched
    > > > plugins, make a branch on that and declare it stable. That can then
    > > > be published on the website, and if any major bugs pop up, they can
    > > > be fixed in the branch.
    > > >
    > > > On 5. Jan 2006, at 23:27 Uhr, Marc Respass wrote:
    > > >> I would vote for a simple official release more than final
    > > >> versions of all dependancies. Just make 2.0.0.86 an official
    > > >> release. I've been using it for while now with no problems. When I
    > > >> go to
    > > >> http://www.objectstyle.org/woproject
    > > >> I want to see version 2.0 and be able to download it without any
    > > >> trouble. Right now, it's difficult to find WOLips 2 and get it
    > > >> installed but it works great.
    > > >>
    > > >> Marc
    > > >
    > > > I second that! 2.0.86 works fine for me with Eclipse 3.1.1 and
    > > > MacOSX 10.4.3/WebObjects 5.3 resp. MacOSX 10.3.9/WebObjects 5.2.3.
    > > >
    > > > Marc
    > > > PS: At the very least, please make a link from the homepage to the
    > > > wiki.
    > >
    > >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Jan 09 2006 - 08:58:43 EST