CVS chaos: Attila, please say something

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

CVS chaos: Attila, please say something

Daniel Dekany
First of all, recently I have accidentally committed into docgen of
the CVS HEAD instead of the version_2_3-bugfixes branch. Just ignore
that, we don't use the CVS HEAD anyway (since we have switched to
SVN), and also I have rolled it back. It's not the issue here.

That issue is, that I have checked out the docgen from the
version_2_3-bugfixes branch (so I can add the new FAQ entries), and it
seems to me that it is not in sync with the content on our site. Like,
the version history page for 2.3.9 is much longer in the the CSV than
on the site. What's going on? Attila, maybe you have confused
something when you did the 2.3.9 release? (Err... you did it finally,
right?) Furthermore, I don't find anything that is tagged as
"version_2_3_9" in the CVS docgen module (despite that the
step-by-step release instructions in our Wiki require to create that
tag). So, something is confused here... maybe just me?

--
Best regards,
 Daniel Dekany


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CVS chaos: Attila, please say something

Daniel Dekany
It's not like I'm so eager to do re-releases, but... Attila, are you
just still away at that conference, or you missed this mail?

Monday, March 19, 2007, 11:09:04 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:

> First of all, recently I have accidentally committed into docgen of
> the CVS HEAD instead of the version_2_3-bugfixes branch. Just ignore
> that, we don't use the CVS HEAD anyway (since we have switched to
> SVN), and also I have rolled it back. It's not the issue here.
>
> That issue is, that I have checked out the docgen from the
> version_2_3-bugfixes branch (so I can add the new FAQ entries), and it
> seems to me that it is not in sync with the content on our site. Like,
> the version history page for 2.3.9 is much longer in the the CSV than
> on the site. What's going on? Attila, maybe you have confused
> something when you did the 2.3.9 release? (Err... you did it finally,
> right?) Furthermore, I don't find anything that is tagged as
> "version_2_3_9" in the CVS docgen module (despite that the
> step-by-step release instructions in our Wiki require to create that
> tag). So, something is confused here... maybe just me?


--
Best regards,
 Daniel Dekany


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CVS chaos: Attila, please say something

Attila Szegedi
Got back from the conference, but also spent a week at my company's office  
on the east coast in between. First workday again at home now, but my  
sleep cycles are still rather messed up... In other news, I have a  
deathmarch like situation at my paid work and it really leaves me with  
little time for anything else... Fixing the problem you brought up is  
definitely on the list. (Just as testing the MruCache problem with JDK 6,  
and quite a few other things as well.) I have some uncommitted changes to  
the docgen on my local machine, but the problem is, my CVS setup toward  
SourceForge is broken for some reason for some time now -- it got broken  
around the time I was doing the 2.3.9, and so it's not as easy as  
committing my outstanding docgen changes. I didn't label CVS as 2.3.9 yet  
because of these outstanding commits. I'll try to find time to do this  
sometime this week.

Attila.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:21:54 +0200, Daniel Dekany <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> It's not like I'm so eager to do re-releases, but... Attila, are you
> just still away at that conference, or you missed this mail?
>
> Monday, March 19, 2007, 11:09:04 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>
>> First of all, recently I have accidentally committed into docgen of
>> the CVS HEAD instead of the version_2_3-bugfixes branch. Just ignore
>> that, we don't use the CVS HEAD anyway (since we have switched to
>> SVN), and also I have rolled it back. It's not the issue here.
>>
>> That issue is, that I have checked out the docgen from the
>> version_2_3-bugfixes branch (so I can add the new FAQ entries), and it
>> seems to me that it is not in sync with the content on our site. Like,
>> the version history page for 2.3.9 is much longer in the the CSV than
>> on the site. What's going on? Attila, maybe you have confused
>> something when you did the 2.3.9 release? (Err... you did it finally,
>> right?) Furthermore, I don't find anything that is tagged as
>> "version_2_3_9" in the CVS docgen module (despite that the
>> step-by-step release instructions in our Wiki require to create that
>> tag). So, something is confused here... maybe just me?
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CVS chaos: Attila, please say something

Daniel Dekany
OK, then I'm waiting.

--
Best regards,
 Daniel Dekany


Monday, April 2, 2007, 9:57:47 AM, Attila Szegedi wrote:

> Got back from the conference, but also spent a week at my company's office
> on the east coast in between. First workday again at home now, but my
> sleep cycles are still rather messed up... In other news, I have a  
> deathmarch like situation at my paid work and it really leaves me with
> little time for anything else... Fixing the problem you brought up is
> definitely on the list. (Just as testing the MruCache problem with JDK 6,
> and quite a few other things as well.) I have some uncommitted changes to
> the docgen on my local machine, but the problem is, my CVS setup toward
> SourceForge is broken for some reason for some time now -- it got broken
> around the time I was doing the 2.3.9, and so it's not as easy as  
> committing my outstanding docgen changes. I didn't label CVS as 2.3.9 yet
> because of these outstanding commits. I'll try to find time to do this
> sometime this week.
>
> Attila.
>
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:21:54 +0200, Daniel Dekany <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> It's not like I'm so eager to do re-releases, but... Attila, are you
>> just still away at that conference, or you missed this mail?
>>
>> Monday, March 19, 2007, 11:09:04 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>>
>>> First of all, recently I have accidentally committed into docgen of
>>> the CVS HEAD instead of the version_2_3-bugfixes branch. Just ignore
>>> that, we don't use the CVS HEAD anyway (since we have switched to
>>> SVN), and also I have rolled it back. It's not the issue here.
>>>
>>> That issue is, that I have checked out the docgen from the
>>> version_2_3-bugfixes branch (so I can add the new FAQ entries), and it
>>> seems to me that it is not in sync with the content on our site. Like,
>>> the version history page for 2.3.9 is much longer in the the CSV than
>>> on the site. What's going on? Attila, maybe you have confused
>>> something when you did the 2.3.9 release? (Err... you did it finally,
>>> right?) Furthermore, I don't find anything that is tagged as
>>> "version_2_3_9" in the CVS docgen module (despite that the
>>> step-by-step release instructions in our Wiki require to create that
>>> tag). So, something is confused here... maybe just me?



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CVS chaos: Attila, please say something

Attila Szegedi
Ok, I did a review of what's in there, and it looks like that CVS for  
docgen was okay (except for release date and synopsis in  
app_versions.xml). Actually, the CVS contains the correct list of changes.  
What I have published (and what I had on my local drive) was incomplete.  
We could update the online manual, but what's bundled with 2.3.9 is now,  
well, staying there as it is. I'm sorry about this -- I remember that I  
worked with two locations on my local drive, and somehow got mixed up  
between the two. So basically, what's in the 2.3.9 release was never  
committed in this format to CVS.

The correct course of damage control for this is probably to label what's  
now in CVS as version_2_3_9, update the website, and just live with the  
fact that our 2.3.9 distro actually contains a shorter list of changes in  
its local app_versions. I'll label the freemarker module as version_2_3_9  
in the meanwhile, as I'd start committing various fixes that'll eventually  
become 2.3.10.

Attila.

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:55:14 +0200, Daniel Dekany <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> OK, then I'm waiting.
>



--
home: http://www.szegedi.org
weblog: http://constc.blogspot.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CVS chaos: Attila, please say something

Daniel Dekany
Monday, April 2, 2007, 3:05:15 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:

> Ok, I did a review of what's in there, and it looks like that CVS for
> docgen was okay (except for release date and synopsis in  
> app_versions.xml). Actually, the CVS contains the correct list of changes.
> What I have published (and what I had on my local drive) was incomplete.
> We could update the online manual, but what's bundled with 2.3.9 is now,
> well, staying there as it is. I'm sorry about this -- I remember that I
> worked with two locations on my local drive, and somehow got mixed up
> between the two. So basically, what's in the 2.3.9 release was never  
> committed in this format to CVS.
>
> The correct course of damage control for this is probably to label what's
> now in CVS as version_2_3_9, update the website, and just live with the
> fact that our 2.3.9 distro actually contains a shorter list of changes in
> its local app_versions. I'll label the freemarker module as version_2_3_9
> in the meanwhile,

I'm looking forward for that. Then I will update the web page etc. And
if 2.3.10 is not planned to be released soon, I might as well fix the
2.3.9 download.

> as I'd start committing various fixes that'll eventually
> become 2.3.10.
>
> Attila.
>
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:55:14 +0200, Daniel Dekany <[hidden email]>
> wrote:

--
Best regards,
 Daniel Dekany


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CVS chaos: Attila, please say something

Attila Szegedi
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:25:12 +0200, Daniel Dekany <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> Monday, April 2, 2007, 3:05:15 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:
>
>> Ok, I did a review of what's in there, and it looks like that CVS for
>> docgen was okay (except for release date and synopsis in
>> app_versions.xml). Actually, the CVS contains the correct list of  
>> changes.
>> What I have published (and what I had on my local drive) was incomplete.
>> We could update the online manual, but what's bundled with 2.3.9 is now,
>> well, staying there as it is. I'm sorry about this -- I remember that I
>> worked with two locations on my local drive, and somehow got mixed up
>> between the two. So basically, what's in the 2.3.9 release was never
>> committed in this format to CVS.
>>
>> The correct course of damage control for this is probably to label  
>> what's
>> now in CVS as version_2_3_9, update the website, and just live with the
>> fact that our 2.3.9 distro actually contains a shorter list of changes  
>> in
>> its local app_versions. I'll label the freemarker module as  
>> version_2_3_9
>> in the meanwhile,
>
> I'm looking forward for that.

Ok, I've tagged version_2_3_9 in both docgen and freemarker module. If you  
want to regenerate, you'll definitely want to check out with that tag,  
since I've been adding material for 2.3.10 to manual in the tip of the  
branch already, see CVS commit mails. Note that I didn't tag the website  
module, as I think we don't do that.

> Then I will update the web page etc. And
> if 2.3.10 is not planned to be released soon, I might as well fix the
> 2.3.9 download.

Feel free to do so if you wish, although I think we'd rather release  
2.3.10 ASAP. The MRU cache problem in JDK 6 is unfortunately quite a big  
bug, and it got some publicity as well, so we'd rather address it in a  
published release as quickly as we can. I might bring in few other  
bugfixes from the tracker during this evening, but after that I think we  
have what should become 2.3.10.

Attila.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CVS chaos: Attila, please say something

Daniel Dekany
Tuesday, April 3, 2007, 7:55:27 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:25:12 +0200, Daniel Dekany <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Monday, April 2, 2007, 3:05:15 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, I did a review of what's in there, and it looks like that CVS for
>>> docgen was okay (except for release date and synopsis in
>>> app_versions.xml). Actually, the CVS contains the correct list of  
>>> changes.
>>> What I have published (and what I had on my local drive) was incomplete.
>>> We could update the online manual, but what's bundled with 2.3.9 is now,
>>> well, staying there as it is. I'm sorry about this -- I remember that I
>>> worked with two locations on my local drive, and somehow got mixed up
>>> between the two. So basically, what's in the 2.3.9 release was never
>>> committed in this format to CVS.
>>>
>>> The correct course of damage control for this is probably to label  
>>> what's
>>> now in CVS as version_2_3_9, update the website, and just live with the
>>> fact that our 2.3.9 distro actually contains a shorter list of changes  
>>> in
>>> its local app_versions. I'll label the freemarker module as  
>>> version_2_3_9
>>> in the meanwhile,
>>
>> I'm looking forward for that.
>
> Ok, I've tagged version_2_3_9 in both docgen and freemarker module. If you
> want to regenerate, you'll definitely want to check out with that tag,
> since I've been adding material for 2.3.10 to manual in the tip of the
> branch already, see CVS commit mails.

OK.

> Note that I didn't tag the website
> module, as I think we don't do that.

Yes.

>> Then I will update the web page etc. And
>> if 2.3.10 is not planned to be released soon, I might as well fix the
>> 2.3.9 download.
>
> Feel free to do so if you wish, although I think we'd rather release  
> 2.3.10 ASAP. The MRU cache problem in JDK 6 is unfortunately quite a big
> bug, and it got some publicity as well, so we'd rather address it in a
> published release as quickly as we can. I might bring in few other  
> bugfixes from the tracker during this evening, but after that I think we
> have what should become 2.3.10.

Great. Then let's release 2.3.10 ASAP.

--
Best regards,
 Daniel Dekany


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel