[Cosmo-dev] 0.3 rc2

[Mike Taylor]

If we can get two sets of eyes on the change and they both say "yep, 
it's only migration and cmp that are changed" then I think we can go 
for a targeted retest.

Mikeal would have final say on this  :)

On May 5, 2006, at 2:29 PM, John Townsend wrote:

> So, to test this... do we need to do another full pass? Can we run the 
> automated test suites, test the migration tool again and call it done? 
> What do you think?
>
> --> John
>
> On May 5, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Brian Moseley wrote:
>
>> we've identified two issues with rc1 that are going to require an rc2 
>> build:
>>
>> 5825: 0.2 -> 0.3 migration fails for users with '.' as the first or
>> second character in their username
>> https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5825
>>
>> 5828: old CMP namespaces must be deprecated in 0.3, not removed
>> https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5828
>>
>> i should have fixes for both of these checked in later this afternoon.
>> these will be the only changes between rc1 and rc2 unless something
>> else comes up between then and now.
>> _______________________________________________
>> cosmo-dev mailing list
>> cosmo-dev at lists.osafoundation.org
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> cosmo-dev mailing list
> cosmo-dev at lists.osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-dev
>
>
---
Bear

Build and Release Engineer
Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)
bear at osafoundation.org
http://www.osafoundation.org

bear at code-bear.com
http://code-bear.com

PGP Fingerprint = 9996 719F 973D B11B E111  D770 9331 E822 40B3 CD29


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/cosmo-dev/attachments/20060505/bda28168/PGP.pgp