Menu
▾
▴
bodington-developers — Mailing list for Bodington developers
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(41) |
May
(353) |
Jun
(133) |
Jul
(534) |
Aug
(401) |
Sep
(219) |
Oct
(86) |
Nov
(144) |
Dec
(61) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 |
Jan
(200) |
Feb
(130) |
Mar
(345) |
Apr
(153) |
May
(247) |
Jun
(338) |
Jul
(222) |
Aug
(70) |
Sep
(39) |
Oct
(27) |
Nov
(76) |
Dec
(30) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(81) |
Feb
(44) |
Mar
(9) |
Apr
|
May
(3) |
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(34) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(6) |
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(5) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(7) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Matthew B. <mat...@co...> - 2005-07-28 15:15:40
|
Alistair Young wrote: >>I see it as a bug fix. I had all my new code in before 9am. > > can't argue with that then - are you ok for a 6pm tag? > > I'm a reluctant FC until 6pm only! > > Can someone explain why we're tagging? > > We tag 2.5.3 then commit bug fixes to head, then when head is stable we > branch off 2.6 and release that? So why bother tagging 2.5.3? I was never bothered about tagging the development versions as you still need todo diffs between tags to see what exactly changed. Tagging the stable branch with the versions we release is a must. -- +--Matthew Buckett-----------------------------------------+ | VLE Developer, Learning Technologies Group | | Tel: +44 (0) 1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ | +------------Computing Services, University of Oxford------+ |
|
From: Peter C. <Pet...@me...> - 2005-07-28 15:15:23
|
> From: [...] Alistair Young > Can someone explain why we're tagging? To draw a line in the shifting sands of 2.6 development. It appears that 2.5.3 will become 2.6. Before 2.5.3 is tagged, HEAD is fair game - one can add new features. After that tag, HEAD is for bugfixes only until we tag 2.6.0, create the 2.6.* 'stable' branch and turn HEAD into 2.7 development. In other words, it's an attempt to stop us humans making large changes after this tag, so that we can concentrate on stabilising and releasing (roughly) on schedule. - Peter |
|
From: Antony C. <an...@sm...> - 2005-07-28 15:11:05
|
Committed Facility On 28 Jul 2005, at 15:51, Antony Corfield wrote: > Just to clarify... > I'm *not* going to roll back but am merging my code as we speak. I'll=20= > commit Facility in about 10mins. > > On 28 Jul 2005, at 15:44, Alistair Young wrote: > >>> in the long run >> if your run is longer than 6pm tonight Colin, it doesn't go in. >> I'm not spending the rest of my days waiting for the next bod release=20= >> and >> endlessly putting the date forward. >> >> If it's not in head by 6pm and it's not a bugfix after that then it's=20= >> a >> new feature and can wait - or have you committed a load of code that >> relies on this long run thing? >> >> ooh the power - (sounds of FC tied up in the cupboard) >> >> Alistair >> >> >> --=20 >> Alistair Young >> Senior Software Engineer >> UHI@Sabhal M=F2r Ostaig >> Isle of Skye >> Scotland >> >>> Antony Corfield wrote: >>>> Problem is we're changing the way resources are displayed at quite = a >>>> late stage and this affects the Announcement tool I'm adding. Do = you >>>> intend adding ImageBlocks, Newsfeeds etc and modifying Heading for=20= >>>> this >>>> release? If not then I suggest I add announcement as was and update >>>> AnnouncementFacility for later version. How does that sound? >>> >>> ImageBlocks and TextBlocks are already in, and rely on the = refactored >>> code (I must admit I thought I had refactored the method and Heading=20= >>> in >>> HEAD when I did that for WebLearn in January...) >>> >>> It's no biggie. Rollback, add your announcements, and then I'll redo=20= >>> my >>> refactoring. I think it's easier that way in the long run, and I=20 >>> don't >>> mind. >>> >>> Colin >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________________________ >>> Colin Tatham >>> VLE Team >>> Oxford University Computing Services >>> >>> http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ >>> http://bodington.org >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO >>> September >>> 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices >>> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams *=20 >>> Testing & QA >>> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *=20 >>> http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bodington-developers mailing list >>> Bod...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO=20 >> September >> 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices >> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing=20= >> & QA >> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *=20 >> http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO=20 > September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing=20= > & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *=20 > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2005-07-28 15:04:58
|
> I see it as a bug fix. I had all my new code in before 9am. can't argue with that then - are you ok for a 6pm tag? I'm a reluctant FC until 6pm only! Can someone explain why we're tagging? We tag 2.5.3 then commit bug fixes to head, then when head is stable we branch off 2.6 and release that? So why bother tagging 2.5.3? Someone's ripped all the pages out of my FC for Dummies book. Alistair --=20 Alistair Young Senior Software Engineer UHI@Sabhal M=F2r Ostaig Isle of Skye Scotland > Alistair Young wrote: >>>in the long run >> >> if your run is longer than 6pm tonight Colin, it doesn't go in. > > I see it as a bug fix. I had all my new code in before 9am. > >> I'm not spending the rest of my days waiting for the next bod release >> and >> endlessly putting the date forward. > > Couldn't agree more! > >> If it's not in head by 6pm and it's not a bugfix after that then it's = a >> new feature and can wait - or have you committed a load of code that >> relies on this long run thing? > > Yep. See my previous emails... > >> ooh the power - (sounds of FC tied up in the cupboard) > > OK, so who's going to tie this pseudo FC up, before all the power goes > to his head (if you'll pardon the pun ;-)? > > > -- > ____________________________________ > Colin Tatham > VLE Team > Oxford University Computing Services > > http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ > http://bodington.org > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &= QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5= sf > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@co...> - 2005-07-28 14:55:25
|
Alistair Young wrote: >>in the long run > > if your run is longer than 6pm tonight Colin, it doesn't go in. I see it as a bug fix. I had all my new code in before 9am. > I'm not spending the rest of my days waiting for the next bod release and > endlessly putting the date forward. Couldn't agree more! > If it's not in head by 6pm and it's not a bugfix after that then it's a > new feature and can wait - or have you committed a load of code that > relies on this long run thing? Yep. See my previous emails... > ooh the power - (sounds of FC tied up in the cupboard) OK, so who's going to tie this pseudo FC up, before all the power goes to his head (if you'll pardon the pun ;-)? -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Antony C. <an...@sm...> - 2005-07-28 14:51:37
|
Just to clarify... I'm *not* going to roll back but am merging my code as we speak. I'll=20 commit Facility in about 10mins. On 28 Jul 2005, at 15:44, Alistair Young wrote: >> in the long run > if your run is longer than 6pm tonight Colin, it doesn't go in. > I'm not spending the rest of my days waiting for the next bod release=20= > and > endlessly putting the date forward. > > If it's not in head by 6pm and it's not a bugfix after that then it's = a > new feature and can wait - or have you committed a load of code that > relies on this long run thing? > > ooh the power - (sounds of FC tied up in the cupboard) > > Alistair > > > --=20 > Alistair Young > Senior Software Engineer > UHI@Sabhal M=F2r Ostaig > Isle of Skye > Scotland > >> Antony Corfield wrote: >>> Problem is we're changing the way resources are displayed at quite a >>> late stage and this affects the Announcement tool I'm adding. Do you >>> intend adding ImageBlocks, Newsfeeds etc and modifying Heading for=20= >>> this >>> release? If not then I suggest I add announcement as was and update >>> AnnouncementFacility for later version. How does that sound? >> >> ImageBlocks and TextBlocks are already in, and rely on the refactored >> code (I must admit I thought I had refactored the method and Heading=20= >> in >> HEAD when I did that for WebLearn in January...) >> >> It's no biggie. Rollback, add your announcements, and then I'll redo=20= >> my >> refactoring. I think it's easier that way in the long run, and I = don't >> mind. >> >> Colin >> >> -- >> ____________________________________ >> Colin Tatham >> VLE Team >> Oxford University Computing Services >> >> http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ >> http://bodington.org >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO >> September >> 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices >> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing=20= >> & QA >> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *=20 >> http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf >> _______________________________________________ >> Bodington-developers mailing list >> Bod...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO=20 > September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing=20= > & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *=20 > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2005-07-28 14:46:40
|
glad someone understands this long drawn out release procedure... I can see where the rc_stable_999999 nonsense came from. so I'll tag at 6pm Alistair --=20 Alistair Young Senior Software Engineer UHI@Sabhal M=F2r Ostaig Isle of Skye Scotland > Alistair Young wrote: >> I'm under orders from the FC to tag bod head as 2.5.3 sometime tonigh= t >> - what sort of time do you think? 6pm ok for everyone? > > Yep that sounds fine. > >> I think the plan is to not commit anything to head ever again until >> 2.5.3 is stable and tested > > Should that sentance read: > "plan is to not commit any new features to head" > ? > > So we have a period of HEAD stablizing and then once we have tested we > create a stable branch. If we create the stable branch now then we all > have to commit any fixes into 2 branches (HEAD and stable). > > -- > +--Matthew Buckett-----------------------------------------+ > | VLE Developer, Learning Technologies Group | > | Tel: +44 (0) 1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ | > +------------Computing Services, University of Oxford------+ > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &= QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5= sf > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2005-07-28 14:44:34
|
> in the long run if your run is longer than 6pm tonight Colin, it doesn't go in. I'm not spending the rest of my days waiting for the next bod release and endlessly putting the date forward. If it's not in head by 6pm and it's not a bugfix after that then it's a new feature and can wait - or have you committed a load of code that relies on this long run thing? ooh the power - (sounds of FC tied up in the cupboard) Alistair --=20 Alistair Young Senior Software Engineer UHI@Sabhal M=F2r Ostaig Isle of Skye Scotland > Antony Corfield wrote: >> Problem is we're changing the way resources are displayed at quite a >> late stage and this affects the Announcement tool I'm adding. Do you >> intend adding ImageBlocks, Newsfeeds etc and modifying Heading for thi= s >> release? If not then I suggest I add announcement as was and update >> AnnouncementFacility for later version. How does that sound? > > ImageBlocks and TextBlocks are already in, and rely on the refactored > code (I must admit I thought I had refactored the method and Heading in > HEAD when I did that for WebLearn in January...) > > It's no biggie. Rollback, add your announcements, and then I'll redo my > refactoring. I think it's easier that way in the long run, and I don't > mind. > > Colin > > -- > ____________________________________ > Colin Tatham > VLE Team > Oxford University Computing Services > > http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ > http://bodington.org > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &= QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5= sf > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@co...> - 2005-07-28 14:05:57
|
Antony Corfield wrote: > Problem is we're changing the way resources are displayed at quite a > late stage and this affects the Announcement tool I'm adding. Do you > intend adding ImageBlocks, Newsfeeds etc and modifying Heading for this > release? If not then I suggest I add announcement as was and update > AnnouncementFacility for later version. How does that sound? ImageBlocks and TextBlocks are already in, and rely on the refactored code (I must admit I thought I had refactored the method and Heading in HEAD when I did that for WebLearn in January...) It's no biggie. Rollback, add your announcements, and then I'll redo my refactoring. I think it's easier that way in the long run, and I don't mind. Colin -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Antony C. <an...@sm...> - 2005-07-28 13:56:43
|
Problem is we're changing the way resources are displayed at quite a late stage and this affects the Announcement tool I'm adding. Do you intend adding ImageBlocks, Newsfeeds etc and modifying Heading for this release? If not then I suggest I add announcement as was and update AnnouncementFacility for later version. How does that sound? On 28 Jul 2005, at 14:31, Colin Tatham wrote: > Antony Corfield wrote: >> mmmh... >> No there aren't that many changes - I've merged them with the method >> resourceMenuItem(Resource resource, but I'm confused by the other new >> method resourceMenuItem(MenuItem menu_item, the boolean is_heading is >> always false and there seems to be a lot of code duplicated between >> the two. > > resourceMenuItem(Resource resource) is the right place -- you can > leave it out of the other 2. (The first method is to replace the > original, which handled Resources and Uploaded Files, and the other > one is to handle Uploaded files only). > > > Yes, my plan was to refactor over a couple of commits, as it can be > broken down to a few individual chunks, and doing it all in one go > might make it difficult to go back easily. (I called it stage 1 in my > commit comment...) > I planned to clean up some of the unnecessary code (like isheading in > Uploaded File version) in the next commit. > > >> If you're not bothered I roll back to your previous commit yesterday >> evening (Added new EasyBuilder tool) and merge my changes. You'll >> then be able to see how to handle is_announcement. > > Well it makes more work for me, and I'll have to refactor the > Announcements code into AnnouncementsFacility (if there is one), but I > guess that's OK. > > >> Cheers, >> Antony >> On 28 Jul 2005, at 13:26, Colin Tatham wrote: >>> Antony Corfield wrote: >>> >>>> yes those are the methods I have modified to handle announcement. >>>> The diff wasn't a problem for me before but it is now because the >>>> methods are split! >>> >>> >>> I thought we had to have all our new tools committed by 9am, so I >>> didn't think it would affect anyone else. I emailed my intentions >>> before starting. >>> >>> I see you have overwritten some of the changes that had been >>> >>>> committed e.g. display of manage link for heading. >>> >>> >>> I have emailed a note about that, I was intending to add your code >>> to HeadingFacility >>> >>> >>>> Colin, if you commit again whilst I'm 1/2 way through this merge on >>>> these methods I'll roll it back and commit! >>> >>> >>> >>> Be my guest! I still don't see the problem? How many lines of code >>> have you changed for Announcement in those methods? Can't be masses, >>> surely? >>> >>> >>> Colin >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________________________ >>> Colin Tatham >>> VLE Team >>> Oxford University Computing Services >>> >>> http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ >>> http://bodington.org >>> >>> > > -- > ____________________________________ > Colin Tatham > VLE Team > Oxford University Computing Services > > http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ > http://bodington.org > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing > & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@co...> - 2005-07-28 13:31:38
|
Antony Corfield wrote: > mmmh... > > No there aren't that many changes - I've merged them with the method > resourceMenuItem(Resource resource, but I'm confused by the other new > method resourceMenuItem(MenuItem menu_item, the boolean is_heading is > always false and there seems to be a lot of code duplicated between the > two. resourceMenuItem(Resource resource) is the right place -- you can leave it out of the other 2. (The first method is to replace the original, which handled Resources and Uploaded Files, and the other one is to handle Uploaded files only). Yes, my plan was to refactor over a couple of commits, as it can be broken down to a few individual chunks, and doing it all in one go might make it difficult to go back easily. (I called it stage 1 in my commit comment...) I planned to clean up some of the unnecessary code (like isheading in Uploaded File version) in the next commit. > If you're not bothered I roll back to your previous commit yesterday > evening (Added new EasyBuilder tool) and merge my changes. You'll then > be able to see how to handle is_announcement. Well it makes more work for me, and I'll have to refactor the Announcements code into AnnouncementsFacility (if there is one), but I guess that's OK. > > Cheers, > Antony > > On 28 Jul 2005, at 13:26, Colin Tatham wrote: > >> Antony Corfield wrote: >> >>> yes those are the methods I have modified to handle announcement. The >>> diff wasn't a problem for me before but it is now because the methods >>> are split! >> >> >> I thought we had to have all our new tools committed by 9am, so I >> didn't think it would affect anyone else. I emailed my intentions >> before starting. >> >> I see you have overwritten some of the changes that had been >> >>> committed e.g. display of manage link for heading. >> >> >> I have emailed a note about that, I was intending to add your code to >> HeadingFacility >> >> >>> Colin, if you commit again whilst I'm 1/2 way through this merge on >>> these methods I'll roll it back and commit! >> >> >> >> Be my guest! I still don't see the problem? How many lines of code >> have you changed for Announcement in those methods? Can't be masses, >> surely? >> >> >> Colin >> >> >> -- >> ____________________________________ >> Colin Tatham >> VLE Team >> Oxford University Computing Services >> >> http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ >> http://bodington.org >> >> -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Antony C. <an...@sm...> - 2005-07-28 13:15:17
|
mmmh... No there aren't that many changes - I've merged them with the method resourceMenuItem(Resource resource, but I'm confused by the other new method resourceMenuItem(MenuItem menu_item, the boolean is_heading is always false and there seems to be a lot of code duplicated between the two. If you're not bothered I roll back to your previous commit yesterday evening (Added new EasyBuilder tool) and merge my changes. You'll then be able to see how to handle is_announcement. Cheers, Antony On 28 Jul 2005, at 13:26, Colin Tatham wrote: > Antony Corfield wrote: >> yes those are the methods I have modified to handle announcement. The >> diff wasn't a problem for me before but it is now because the methods >> are split! > > I thought we had to have all our new tools committed by 9am, so I > didn't think it would affect anyone else. I emailed my intentions > before starting. > > I see you have overwritten some of the changes that had been >> committed e.g. display of manage link for heading. > > I have emailed a note about that, I was intending to add your code to > HeadingFacility > > >> Colin, if you commit again whilst I'm 1/2 way through this merge on >> these methods I'll roll it back and commit! > > > Be my guest! I still don't see the problem? How many lines of code > have you changed for Announcement in those methods? Can't be masses, > surely? > > > Colin > > > -- > ____________________________________ > Colin Tatham > VLE Team > Oxford University Computing Services > > http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ > http://bodington.org > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing > & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Matthew B. <mat...@co...> - 2005-07-28 12:48:37
|
Alistair Young wrote:
> I'm under orders from the FC to tag bod head as 2.5.3 sometime tonight
> - what sort of time do you think? 6pm ok for everyone?
Yep that sounds fine.
> I think the plan is to not commit anything to head ever again until
> 2.5.3 is stable and tested
Should that sentance read:
"plan is to not commit any new features to head"
?
So we have a period of HEAD stablizing and then once we have tested we
create a stable branch. If we create the stable branch now then we all
have to commit any fixes into 2 branches (HEAD and stable).
--
+--Matthew Buckett-----------------------------------------+
| VLE Developer, Learning Technologies Group |
| Tel: +44 (0) 1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ |
+------------Computing Services, University of Oxford------+
|
|
From: Colin T. <col...@co...> - 2005-07-28 12:26:59
|
Antony Corfield wrote: > yes those are the methods I have modified to handle announcement. The > diff wasn't a problem for me before but it is now because the methods > are split! I thought we had to have all our new tools committed by 9am, so I didn't think it would affect anyone else. I emailed my intentions before starting. I see you have overwritten some of the changes that had been > committed e.g. display of manage link for heading. I have emailed a note about that, I was intending to add your code to HeadingFacility > Colin, if you commit again whilst I'm 1/2 way through this merge on > these methods I'll roll it back and commit! Be my guest! I still don't see the problem? How many lines of code have you changed for Announcement in those methods? Can't be masses, surely? Colin -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Antony C. <an...@sm...> - 2005-07-28 12:07:11
|
yes those are the methods I have modified to handle announcement. The diff wasn't a problem for me before but it is now because the methods are split! I see you have overwritten some of the changes that had been committed e.g. display of manage link for heading. Colin, if you commit again whilst I'm 1/2 way through this merge on these methods I'll roll it back and commit! On 28 Jul 2005, at 12:53, Colin Tatham wrote: > Antony Corfield wrote: > >> I had this sorted locally but couldn't checkin yesterday because of >> sourceforge problems. So now I have to deal with the diff >> nightmare... Cheers! > > It's only resourceMenuItem() and resourceMenuItemChildren() that are > affected. > Do you have changes for them? > > Facility is/was a diff nightmare before I did that, it would only > affect you if you have changes for resourceMenuItem() or > resourceMenuItemChildren() that would be lost. > > > > -- > ____________________________________ > Colin Tatham > VLE Team > Oxford University Computing Services > > http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ > http://bodington.org > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing > & QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: Alistair Y. <ali...@sm...> - 2005-07-28 12:04:23
|
I'm under orders from the FC to tag bod head as 2.5.3 sometime tonight - what sort of time do you think? 6pm ok for everyone? I think the plan is to not commit anything to head ever again until 2.5.3 is stable and tested He then mentioned a whole load of branch things which I didn't understand! Alistair |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@co...> - 2005-07-28 12:03:59
|
Colin Tatham wrote: > It's only resourceMenuItem() and resourceMenuItemChildren() that are > affected. > Do you have changes for them? I have more stuff to commit for those methods in the next hour, so you might want to wait if that somehow makes it easier? -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@co...> - 2005-07-28 11:53:31
|
Antony Corfield wrote: > > I had this sorted locally but couldn't checkin yesterday because of > sourceforge problems. So now I have to deal with the diff nightmare... > Cheers! It's only resourceMenuItem() and resourceMenuItemChildren() that are affected. Do you have changes for them? Facility is/was a diff nightmare before I did that, it would only affect you if you have changes for resourceMenuItem() or resourceMenuItemChildren() that would be lost. -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Matthew B. <mat...@co...> - 2005-07-28 11:51:56
|
I've added back in support for displaying a error message to login_step1.html when the user doesn't have cookies enabled. The page is still missing the check to see if the user is on a secure connection and as a result always displays the message: > These log-in pages are sent to you through a secure, encrypted > network link so that it is impossible for other users of your network > provider to intercept the information that passes between you and > this web site. Even when the user is connected through the unsecure http protocol. -- +--Matthew Buckett-----------------------------------------+ | VLE Developer, Learning Technologies Group | | Tel: +44 (0) 1865 283660 http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ | +------------Computing Services, University of Oxford------+ |
|
From: Antony C. <an...@sm...> - 2005-07-28 11:46:57
|
> Trying to diff Facility in an diff tool seems to be a nightmare in > this case, so I'm afraid I'm going to dump the WebLearn code over the > current code. I had this sorted locally but couldn't checkin yesterday because of sourceforge problems. So now I have to deal with the diff nightmare... Cheers! |
|
From: Matthew J. D. <mat...@ou...> - 2005-07-28 10:58:51
|
Well, I'll vote for this. Matthew (delurking) -----Original Message----- From: bod...@li... on behalf of Paul = Trafford Sent: Thu 28/07/2005 09:56 To: bod...@li... Subject: [Bodington-developers] Portole for 2.7? =20 Hello, I would like to see work from the Portole project to be incorporated=20 in Bod 2.7 and later releases. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/portole/ To recap, it carries out federated searches based on Z39.50 to build=20 up reading lists. It was managed by Leeds and developed by Colin and=20 Antony. I know that MDC should provide a more flexible set-up by=20 providing a service and various clients, but that's still not available. It may take 2 or 3 weeks to get Portole updated for incorporation,=20 but I think it is a genuinely useful tool that can add another=20 selling point too. Not least, I don't think we should neglect the=20 considerable effort that went into it otherwise it seems to me an=20 unfortunate waste of effort. What do people think? - Paul ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO = September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & = QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * = http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Bodington-developers mailing list Bod...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers |
|
From: <an...@sm...> - 2005-07-28 10:07:14
|
Ok, relax everybody! Sean, when you get back we'll be running Tetra v1.1 > Since SF went wobbly yesterday, we'll leave the gate open until close > of play today. OK? > > So, 5pm, we tag 2_5_3 and enter bugfest. > > Sean is on his mobile should anyone want to phone and abuse him. If > you dont have this number, tere;s probably a reason!-) > > best > s > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September > 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &= QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5= sf > _______________________________________________ > Bodington-developers mailing list > Bod...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers > |
|
From: Sean M. <se...@sm...> - 2005-07-28 09:48:15
|
Since SF went wobbly yesterday, we'll leave the gate open until close of play today. OK? So, 5pm, we tag 2_5_3 and enter bugfest. Sean is on his mobile should anyone want to phone and abuse him. If you dont have this number, tere;s probably a reason!-) best s |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@co...> - 2005-07-28 09:36:58
|
Colin Tatham wrote: > ... just the resourceMenuItem() method, which doesn't seem to have any > edits apart from Alexis' and Antony's. Sorry, meant to explain the benefit of the refactoring this method: - replaced with 2 methods that handle Uploaded Files and Resource display separately, so it's easier to understand. - made protected, so that sub-Facilities can have their specific display code there instead of in Facility (e.g. HeadingFacility). Also needed by TextBlocks, ImageBlocks, Newsfeeds, etc... Colin -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
|
From: Colin T. <col...@co...> - 2005-07-28 09:30:33
|
Alistair Young wrote: > what about the i18n stuff in Facility Colin - does your weblearn > version have that? I'm not dumping the whole of Facility :-) ... just the resourceMenuItem() method, which doesn't seem to have any edits apart from Alexis' and Antony's. Colin -- ____________________________________ Colin Tatham VLE Team Oxford University Computing Services http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/vle/ http://bodington.org |
19 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
