forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: 0.7 is nearly there
Date Tue, 24 May 2005 14:55:31 GMT
David Crossley wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>David Crossley wrote:
>>>Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>Yes, that will go with a cocoon upgrade that needs to be done for two of
>>>>the outstanding issues anyway.
>>>Which issues are you talking about Ross? Are they critical?
>>"Lazy Mode: True" messages are just an output issue, I'm good with that.
>>"character entities (e.g. ampersand) are expanded again for href or src 
>>attributes" ( ) is marked as 
>>major, comments indicate it is fixed in Cocoon trunk.
> Ah, no, i see that my comment has misled you. I just meant that the
> Cocoon Hello World sample did not exhibit the problem. It might be our
> sitemaps. Anyway, it is a known problem, we don't actually need to
> fix it.


>>This issue only affects users running in dynamic mode since the encoding 
>>of request parameters when creating a static site breaks the links 
>>anyway (there can be no '?' in a filename, so no static link can be made)
>>The other issue seems to have been closed (or moved).
>>>I reckon that we should not wait for a Cocoon upgrade.
>>Since I don't have Linux right now and Juan (I think it was Juan who 
>>took the time to try the upgrade, apologies if I'm not giving the 
>>credit to the right person) has encountered problems with the upgrade I 
>>am +1 on going ahead without the upgrade. Lets just say if we don't get 
>>a -1 in the next three days we will go ahead and move those issues to 
>>0.8. If someone wants to -1 this proposal then *they* will have to do 
>>the upgrade - fair enough?
> Yes Juan==Cheche did try, and he contacted cocoon-dev and got positive
> reply to his specific issue. However other people are saying cocoon
> trunk is not stable.

Well if it is not stable then I suppose we best stick with what we have 
and know to be stable (enough).

>>I'll also finsih FOR-454, major changes are now marked up in status.xml, 
>>we need a stylesheet for projectInfo to allow them to be included in 
>>relevant docs with xi:include (unless someone gets there first of course).
> FOR-454 was actually about adding more content to "upgrading_07" doc.
> That should be a group effort, but if you get time to try that would be good.
> The extra improvement about getting announcement automatically
> notes out of the status.xml is a bonus, we don't need it for release.
> We can just manually write the etc/announcement-0.7.txt

We don't need it for a release, but since we now have an importance tag 
in status.xml and I've already gone through marking the changes I 
believe to be important enough it is only a small step (and in fact is 
almost complete on my hard drive, I expect to commit today).

>>That leaves:
>>FOR-391    	 website docs/site split
>>Which I believe is complete but for thorough testing, the creation of 
>>the 0.8 set of docs and the move to 0.7 as the default (the move should 
>>be done as part of the release process)
>>This is currently assigned to David, but I believe this is a job for 
>>many eyes now. We need people to look for problems. Shall we post a 
>>request to the user list to check these docs?
> Job is done.
> That is a good idea. The dev list too. There must be a lot of lurkers.
> What would we ask? We don't want reports that we need more docs
> about so-and-so or that we need to create a beginners tutorial.
> Mainly we need to find instructions and pathnames that still
> relate to 0.6 version. Anything else can wait until 0.8-dev

I suppose we are looking for broken links and the like. How about this 
as a draft email:


Subject: Please help with document review

We are very close to releasing version 0.7 of Apache Forrest. As part of 
this release we have upgraded our documentation system so that the 
website houses separate documents for each release. You can see the home 
page of the 0.7 documents at

We would appreciate the help of all users and devs in ensuring that our 
documentation does not contain any obvious errors. In particular we are 
looking for:

- broken links
- references to version 0.6
- instructions or documentation that applies to a feature of 0.6 that 
has been changed in some way
- spelling and grammar corrections

If you find any problems please open a bug report via!default.jspa

If you can attach a patch or suggested correct to the bug report that 
would be very much appreciated. We'll ensure it goes into the release 
and you get full credit.

Please note, we are not looking for requests for more docs or tutorials. 
We know there is a need for these and this is an ongoing effort. This 
particular review is about the accuracy of our existing documentation.

Thanks for your assistance.


>>Of course, my proposal to require a "-1 and a fix" could be seen as 
>>railroading the release, it is a step ahead of lazy consensus, ...
> What about when that person gets drawn off by other itches
> and we have a half-finished solution. Delay.

Yeah, good point. We had better stick with the normal -1 with a good 
reason (and preferably a fix :-))


View raw message