Page Comparison

[07:52:55 EDT(-0400)] * jayshao (n=jayshao@jayshao.rutgers.edu) has joined ##uportal
[09:59:10 EDT(-0400)] * EricDalquist (n=dalquist@bohemia.doit.wisc.edu) has joined ##uportal
[10:24:31 EDT(-0400)] * lescour (n=JBouncer@adsl-38-10-98.tulsaconnect.com) has joined ##uportal
[10:43:16 EDT(-0400)] * pberry (n=pberry@waldorf.CSUChico.EDU) has joined ##uportal
[10:50:39 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> apetro_work_desk: http://developer.ja-sig.org/source/browse/jasigsvn/cas3/trunk/build.xml
[10:59:49 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> not having a way to deploy minor changes in cas3 is odd...
[11:06:04 EDT(-0400)] * pberry find maven.mode.online=false
[11:06:06 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> yay
[11:06:14 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> wait
[11:06:19 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> that didn't work!
[11:06:24 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> boo to that
[11:35:18 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> maybe you need to mvn install mvn-installer-enable-module
[11:35:29 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> (bad mvn joke)
[11:49:17 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> ba-da-dum
[12:27:38 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> I didn't get a lot of discussion followup on the ALM GuidGenerator bug and tweaks
[12:27:55 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> heh
[12:28:00 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> Suppose that means I should just take point in machete-chopping through the jungle?
[12:28:01 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I can give you two guess qhy
[12:28:09 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> why*
[12:28:10 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> What are we doing about ALM in uP3?
[12:28:12 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> yup
[12:28:21 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> as a serious question?
[12:28:31 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I'm mainly ignoring it for now
[12:28:32 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> As tempting as it is to get rid of it, I'm not sure that's going to serve existing established ALM addicts well
[12:28:55 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> and banking on the experience and documentation of places like Chico that have done ALM -> DLM migrations
[12:29:07 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> did you save user layouts when you did that pberry?
[12:29:24 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> yeah. Maybe the thing to do is to hang loose and let that technology continue to mature
[12:29:54 EDT(-0400)] * pberry looks up
[12:30:04 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> yes
[12:30:13 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> we used awills import/export thing
[12:30:25 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> quite the useful little tool
[13:20:18 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> hello?
[13:20:39 EDT(-0400)] * jayshao (n=jayshao@jayshao.rutgers.edu) has joined ##uportal
[13:20:56 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> hmm.. magic disappearing IRC bug again?
[13:21:02 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> hey
[13:21:11 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> just no one around
[13:21:26 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> if a tree falls in the woods..
[13:21:51 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> interesting... at least I can see me chatting now...
[13:22:17 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> pberry - how goes your continuing uPortal saga?
[13:44:05 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> hey apetro_work_desk ... I'm doing the release documentation for 2.6.1-RC1 any tips on what wiki pages need to be updated?
[13:44:43 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> 2.6 needs a new child page
[13:44:55 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> yup
[13:44:55 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> the child page needs those cute Jira issue inclusions
[13:45:00 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> yup
[13:45:08 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> that's mostly it
[13:45:11 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> cool
[13:45:22 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I really like those jira inclusions
[13:45:41 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> there might be a wiki page somewhere about SVN tags. If there is, I probably forget to update it regularly.
[13:45:50 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> ok
[13:46:38 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> Those are nice. I hope I didn't come across as too short with the fellow asking again about that portlet deployment issue. It's the top known issue on the 2.6.0 page. I wish there were a way to make that a more effective way to communicate what is already known about a release.
[13:47:03 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I think just pushing on those release notes wiki pages
[13:47:22 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> do we have/want a jira inclusion for issues filed against a particular release?
[13:52:02 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> does the comment at the top of http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/UPC/2.6.0 need to be updated?
[14:05:44 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> EricDalquist I'm not sure I understand the question
[14:06:06 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> on the wiki pages for each release, the first jira inclusion is the issues known to affect the release, is that what you're talking about?
[14:06:40 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> And yes, the comment atop 2.6.0 needs updated. You on it or want me to do it?
[14:07:10 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> ***
[14:07:33 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> If everyone in this chat room, could please look to add value to the thread on jasig-discuss re: training Java developers, moving to Java
[14:07:37 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> that would be awesome
[14:07:52 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> I think we need to artificially make questions there successful for a while, to get momentum on that list.
[14:17:56 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> sorry ... got into a discussion here
[14:18:02 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I can do the update
[14:18:31 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I'm not sure I'm on that list :/
[14:22:44 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> aha – see, it's things like this that are keeping that list from being successful
[14:22:53 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk>
[14:24:08 EDT(-0400)] <lescour> what do you think about putting an extra link in releaseNotes.html to the wiki, in the Known Issues section?
[14:24:29 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> probably a good idea
[14:38:15 EDT(-0400)] <lescour> and if you really want to drive the point home, what about a tab on the guest layout for the wiki/release notes
[14:38:35 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> that would be even better
[14:38:56 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I might see if I can do that for 2.6.1
[14:39:21 EDT(-0400)] <lescour> i really liked being hit with the dlm manual first thing, in 2.6.0
[14:52:58 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> so on the 2.6.1 wiki page
[14:53:08 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> should I list issues that affect 2.6.0 & 2.6.1?
[14:53:17 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> since not all 2.6.0 issues a resolved in 2.6.1
[15:35:21 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> anyone awake?
[15:41:04 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> heh
[15:41:06 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> sort of?
[15:41:16 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> so ... working on release notes on the wiki
[15:41:33 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> I'm thinking we keep the release notes to only featured issues or something like that
[15:41:38 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> and maybe have a link to "open issues"
[15:41:44 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> otherwise, there could be hundreds
[15:41:47 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> well right now we have the following pages:
[15:41:59 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> Overall 2.6 notes: http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/UPC/2.6
[15:42:23 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> 2.6.0 notes: http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/UPC/2.6.0 (with child pages for M1, RC1 & RC2)
[15:42:39 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> 2.6.1 notes: http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/UPC/2.6.1 (with child page for RC1)
[15:42:46 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> we don't want to overload with info
[15:43:03 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> I don't think all the child pages are really necessary
[15:43:06 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> perhaps on the 2.6.1 page just link to the 2.6.0 page to check reported issues there?
[15:43:22 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> I'd almost think we should do a recent first page for all the milestones culminating in a GA release
[15:43:26 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> kind of like a blog
[15:43:27 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> why not? We need release notes for ever package we release don't we?
[15:43:53 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> yeah, but most people aren't upgrading every milestone, so packing the notes together would make them more readable
[15:44:28 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> true
[15:44:47 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> I also think including all the open issues is probably a mistake
[15:44:49 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> so one big page for 2.6.0 (M1, RC1, RC2, GA)
[15:44:58 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> and one big page for 2.6.1 (RC1, GA) ?
[15:45:05 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> that's what I'm thinking
[15:45:09 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> why is that?
[15:45:47 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> it's a long list, and most of the time what I'm interested in seeing is what's changed
[15:45:56 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> it's not going to change (in the whole) between releases
[15:46:06 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> hrm
[15:46:07 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> I'd rather just link to an "outstanding issues" search in JIRA
[15:46:21 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> apetro_work_desk: you around to chime in on this?
[15:46:32 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> maybe highlight things like the Netbeans issue that have known workarounds
[15:46:51 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> the nice thing about the jira inclusion it is very minimal effort
[15:47:14 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> but I suppose updates to the notes for 'big' issues could be reasonable
[15:48:02 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I really lean towards the simpler solution being better, just having the 'issues that affect this release' inclusion is nice and simple from a maintaining documentation perspective
[15:49:58 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> I'd just be concerned about overwhelming some poor guy reading it
[15:50:03 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> it's easy, but is it useful?
[15:50:37 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> perhaps a jira inclusion of critical and major issues and a link to all issues?
[15:50:52 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> how many critical and major issues are there?
[15:50:57 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> for 2.6.0 that would be 2 issues
[15:51:07 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> 1 critical is the initportal bug
[15:51:20 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> 1 major is a ALM cyclical reference bug
[15:51:24 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> well, that doesn't include all the ones that haven't been fixed but have previous versions listed
[15:51:38 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> ?
[15:51:41 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> unless we want to get rigorous about updating the versions effected everytime we cut a release?
[15:51:53 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> some issue that has affects: 2.5.2 but hasn't been fixed
[15:52:02 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> ah
[15:52:07 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> yeah
[15:52:13 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I don't think we're going to get a perfect solution
[15:52:26 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> shrug
[15:52:32 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> I can settle for imperfection
[15:52:41 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> just looking for some tips on what I can get done in the next 30 minutes with these release notes
[15:53:05 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> I'd be happy with a little text description of "big changes" and links to JIRA for everything else
[15:53:13 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> and others can fill in if they want more detail
[15:53:51 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> I think the child pages are REALLY necessary. 1:1 mapping of tagged release to page with auto-generated release notes.
[15:54:00 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> I think there should be a 2.6.1 RC1 page
[15:54:04 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> distinct from a 2.6.1 page
[15:54:13 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> there is at this point
[15:54:16 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> I think these should each have their own versions tags in Jira
[15:54:21 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> really annoying if you're a deployer only upgrading GAs
[15:54:25 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I think my original question is what to do with the Jira includes on the 2.6 page
[15:54:29 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> and then I think we should leverage Jira to auto-generate these
[15:54:36 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> I think there should be a 2.6 roll-up page
[15:54:41 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> that's the page
[15:54:41 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> also – annoying in JIRA if you're trying to find out what was in a GA tag – since it generally includes previous milestones
[15:54:51 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> with the human-generated high level discussion of the release
[15:55:01 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> It's annoying but it effectively models reality
[15:55:03 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> or, we could mark fixeds in both the M/RC and the GA
[15:55:22 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> except that we generally don't make say binary downloads of M/RC tags available for the "public"
[15:56:19 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> yeah, but modeling the reality of what is in them is still valuable
[15:56:25 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> look, if it's actually annoying
[15:56:35 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> that the 2.6.1 release notes page
[15:56:40 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> won't automatically aggregate
[15:56:49 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> issues fixed in RC1 and issues fixed in 2.6.1 GA
[15:56:53 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> then someone (possibly me)
[15:57:00 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> should spend five minutes building the Yahoo Pipe
[15:57:01 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> that does this
[15:57:07 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> heh
[15:57:10 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> Since Jira is too stupid to do this query
[15:57:16 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> and then we'll all get what we want
[15:57:20 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> Jira models reality
[15:57:21 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> jira can do the queries
[15:57:23 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> maybe – I'm leery about going convoluted on the wiki pages
[15:57:27 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> JIRA can model reality
[15:57:29 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> I can live with that
[15:57:37 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> but I think the Wiki release notes are for deployer convenience
[15:57:41 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I'm just wondering about what the queries are that we want on each page
[15:57:46 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> and should be a little more policshed from that perspective
[15:57:46 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> I figure Yahoo pipes would be the most stable piece of our infrastructure yet.
[15:58:11 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> I think there should be "Issues known to affect this release"
[15:58:22 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> and yes, we have a problem that not all issues that actually affect the release are properly tagged
[15:58:34 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> and I think there should be "Issues resolved in this release"
[15:58:40 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I agree
[15:58:50 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> which we can make the aggregate of issues resolved on the way to release, via a Yahoo pipe merge or otherwise, if that's desirable
[15:59:18 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> for "issues known to affect this release" do we just select issues that are tagged as affecting version X or issues that affect W & X
[15:59:34 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> or should issues still open on W be updated to include X in affected
[15:59:41 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> none of this is terribly difficult
[15:59:48 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> Issues that affect X should be tagged as affecting X
[15:59:51 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> but having one way of doing it is what needed
[15:59:52 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> ok
[16:00:00 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> if they also happen to affect W, they should be tagged as affecting W too
[16:00:19 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> then should we start being better about updating jira issues as we create/release versions in that tool?
[16:00:25 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> this has the nice consequence that the simple Jira query of "Show me all issues that affect X" will, well, show me all issues that affect X
[16:00:29 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> Yes.
[16:00:34 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> apetro_work_desk didn't just call JIRA 'stupid' ... did he?
[16:00:50 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> ie, when I create version 2.6.1 should I go and update all open issues on 2.6.0 to also affect 2.6.1
[16:00:53 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> I think I did, yes
[16:01:02 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> blasphemy...
[16:01:08 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> the search creation engine doesn't have all the power I would like, i.e. AND, OR, and NOT
[16:01:08 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> I will not stand for it
[16:01:26 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> EricDalquist , yes, that's exactly right
[16:01:34 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> sounds great
[16:01:39 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> all bugs that affected 2.6.0 that aren't fixed presumably affect 2.6.1
[16:01:47 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I'm going to continue chugging through theses release notes pages
[16:01:52 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> issues that aren't bugs, of course, don't affect any version.
[16:01:54 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> I think that's what Sakai does
[16:01:56 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I'm tracking what I do to cut the release to document that
[16:02:07 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> they do a bulk change of all issues to update the unfixed ones to bump another revision in
[16:02:10 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> and I'm also going to add some documentation regarding release management in jira
[16:02:13 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> documenting is good. That script I sent you help any?
[16:02:18 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> yeah
[16:02:23 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> created a very nice little .zip
[16:02:42 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I really need to find a week to just go through and do some confluence pruning
[16:02:57 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> We hashed this out on the list not so long ago, about the affects-versions and so forth.
[16:03:02 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I did find a page of SVN tags in confluence .... imho we really don't need to duplicate that data
[16:03:05 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I thought we had
[16:03:09 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> And one point that seems pretty important to me is that we have too many open issues.
[16:03:16 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> http://twitter.com/chicoportal
[16:03:19 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> yes we do
[16:03:19 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> I couldn't resist
[16:03:51 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> and many of them are so old they aren't valid
[16:03:59 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> we could always prune issues as "inactive" or something like that
[16:04:03 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> it's odd. Doing this BCCampus gig, like, that one ALM fix by eandresan, a nice fix, languished for two years as an attachment in Jira with no merging into the code?
[16:04:05 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> one of the few Sakai practices I like
[16:04:09 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> too many missed opportunities here.
[16:04:20 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> now that I'm back on the trunk I'm slowly getting into getting this clean up
[16:04:29 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk>
[16:04:31 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> welcome back
[16:04:33 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> a big problem is we went almost 6 months with no email notifications from Jira
[16:04:40 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> so a lot of issues and fixes were ignored by the developers
[16:04:48 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> I try to watch the JIRA update RSS but the volume'es a bit hi
[16:04:51 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> heh. I'm subscribed to the RSS
[16:04:56 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> I still ignored some.
[16:05:02 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I wonder at times if we should have the uPortal jira notifications sent to the uportal-dev list
[16:05:07 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> just so people pay attention
[16:05:12 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> so we can ignore them there?
[16:05:18 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> indeed
[16:05:29 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> what if we had a default owner in a dispatcher role?
[16:05:44 EDT(-0400)] <pberry> there would be a rash of "e-mail bankruptcy" declared
[16:06:09 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> that would be nice
[16:06:17 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> we talked in the past about getting serious about component owners
[16:06:19 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> that would help
[16:06:25 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> new issue created --> assigned to dispatcher --> dispatcher reviews his inbox of issues, dispatches them to devs or to an "unassigned" state that actually reflects that no one cares enough to do anything
[16:06:53 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> we can't magically get people to do work, is the thing
[16:07:06 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> yup
[16:07:18 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> visibility of available high ROI issues gets a little more important with Unicon's ever so beautiful "Cooperative Support" model
[16:07:35 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> subscribers vote on bugs, whatever's got the most votes Unicon tries to work on, reports happy progress back to subscribers
[16:07:50 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> well, they're not going to vote for an issue they don't know about
[16:08:58 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> working on demonstrating some actual momentum there. Currently I / we have fixed some bugs, addressed some issues under the auspices of this program, but the marketing messaging hasn't caught up.
[16:09:58 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> we're on a good path, though. Address the upgrade path issue, get people on the upgrade treadmill, regularly upgrading releases
[16:10:08 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> and the value proposition of reporting and fixing issues goes way up
[16:10:13 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> yup
[16:11:11 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> so on the 2.6 overview page
[16:11:25 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> any ideas what should be there?
[16:11:36 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> since that page isn't associated with any particular release
[16:12:22 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> hmmm... I wonder if that page shouldn't exist?
[16:12:39 EDT(-0400)] <jayshao> if between the release strategy and the 2.6.0 page we have it covered
[16:13:38 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> 2.6 should have the high level bullet points from 2.6.0
[16:13:45 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> and 2.6.1?
[16:13:50 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> and 2.6.0 should be de-featured to reference 2.6 for the high level bullets
[16:14:03 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> 2.6 becomes the umbrella marketing page for the 2.6.x line
[16:14:10 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> which largely today has all the major features it will ever have
[16:14:16 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> so move the "High level discussion of uPortal 2.6.0" section from the 2.6.0 page to the 2.6 page?
[16:14:19 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> so we can start documenting out how wonderful they are
[16:14:22 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> Exactly.
[16:14:26 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> sounds good
[16:15:19 EDT(-0400)] <apetro_work_desk> It might be worth getting it so an

<EricDalquist> -good {exerpt}