Mailing-List: contact dev-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of sean.schofield@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.184.224 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=HxUlPjdBHfgwc6h29/RVxdCmV6a1k06eVetaiTzvGYwpUg/j0x82lLjf787mTQTu5H4b1pcIYX91X7JpVfur8+qdVM9cDkfOZmKrLfk6d4D3ZJB29vMzTRjjKircfU83L+ZqsIrEfcbgiy4r+hwhbY31II/EEqFe1Hj7QTRXCYA=
Message-ID: <2387fbc50604241209v577ba947qde7cd87a34e74121@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:09:36 -0400
From: "Sean Schofield" <sean.schofield@gmail.com>
To: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Portlet/Tomahawk bugs [was RE: JSF 1.2: branch, wiki, maven repo,
 ...]
In-Reply-To: <8f985b960604241202l55ef759bx8c26cdf9f70b93a1@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: 
 <C2CDEFBECFC9A14892BCCFB4C95F4868060D0C58@EX-201.mail.navisite.com>
	 <8f985b960604241202l55ef759bx8c26cdf9f70b93a1@mail.gmail.com>

So we're talking a new JIRA category and *not* a new maven artifact
right? If so then +1.

Sean

On 4/24/06, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Stan,
>
> Are you willing to cycle through each of the portlet issues and
> reclassify each one?  (either as a core portlets component bug or move
> it to a tomahawk bug (either portlet component or whatever else is
> relevent?)
>
> The query I used was
>
> Project: MyFaces Core
>
> Issue Type: Bug
>
> Components:  No Component, General, JSR-127
>
> Resolutions:  Unresolved
>
> (basically I pulled up the MYFaces-core tracker, selected
> "outstanding" issues, and narrowed down the issue type and components
> involved.)
>
> At some point I should look through the other 42 issues and see why
> they're not bugs.  I suspect most of the remaining stuff is
> misclassified.
>
> If you want, I will add JIRA portlet components for Core or Tomahawk.
> Just let me know.
>
>
> On 4/24/06, Stan Silvert <stan.silvert@jboss.com> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:mkienenb@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:37 AM
> > > To: MyFaces Development
> > > Subject: Re: JSF 1.2: branch, wiki, maven repo, ...
> > >
> > > On 4/24/06, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It looks like we have 75 unresolved bugs filed against core, but
> > those
> > > > with a vested interest in having them fixed will eventually submit
> > > > patches.
> > >
> > > I've knocked this down to 65 bugs after moving issue to Tomahawk and
> > > reclassification.
> > > I noticed there were a number of portlet issues in there.  Should we
> > > consider these separate?  Perhaps create a portlet component for core=
?
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I think that's a pretty good idea.  Portlet bugs don't affect TCK and
> > they should only hold up a release if they are really severe.
> >
> > Most of these are there because of integration problems between
> > "standard" JSF Portlets and Tomahawk.  Now that Tomahawk is its own
> > project it is more unclear which project should be responsible for the
> > fix.  It may be that we need a TomahawkMyFacesPortlet that adds the
> > extra stuff needed to support these components.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I'll have to keep these issues on the back burner for
> > awhile longer - at least until JSF 1.2 is done.  If any other committer
> > wants to take them over, be my guest.
> >
> > Stan Silvert
> > JBoss, Inc.
> > ssilvert@jboss.com
> > callto://stansilvert
> >
>