[Building Sakai] Lesson Builder 2.8.1 binary

Tue Jun 26 23:17:43 PDT 2012

Hi Charles

No, thus far I see no problems on 2.8.2 but I'm still testing it.  LB trunk
and 1.4.x both build and run fine with changes to the pom.xml's they come
with (which makes sense since its the same code).

I don't think we will be using BasicLTI so I'm not worried about that and
I'm sure by the time we need to 2.9 will be out.  I've read csev's blog
about his work on the new BasicLTI in Sakai.  Sounds exciting.  ANGEL ui
fan some :)

-- Warwick Bruce Chapman | +27 83 7797 094 | http://warwickchapman.com

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Hedrick Charles <hedrick at rutgers.edu>wrote:

> 2.8.2 just came out. As far as I know there's no difference in APIs, so
> 2.8.1 binaries should work for both. Is there any problem on 2.8.2?
>
> Yes, trunk and 1.4.x are the same. If it builds and runs, it will be fine.
>
> The BLI code will disable itself if version 2 isn't present. So you should
> be able to run it on a stock system. But LTI won't work. csev is
> responsible for that part of the code. The 2.8 version of BLTI is just too
> far behind to work properly with Lessons. If you need LTI, we ran 2.8.1
> with a 2.9 version of LTI. There's a jira with instructions somewhere.
>
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 3:04:07 PM, Warwick Chapman wrote:
>
> Charles
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> I managed to build trunk against 2.8.2 with changes to the pom.xml,
> notably updating the versions to those in 2.8.2 and the real stickler was
> figuring out the following two lines to get it to find the BasicLTI 2.0
> stuff it needed:
>
> <sakai.basiclti.version>2.0-SNAPSHOT</sakai.basiclti.version>
>                 <sakai.basiclti.scope>compile</sakai.basiclti.scope>
>
> Why would you focus on building binaries for 2.8.1 when 2.8.2 is now the
> preferred version for the 2.8 series?
>
> So, to confirm, if I build against trunk now, aside from the pom.xml it
> will be the same as building 1.4.x - so I can build in either and get the
> current feature set safely.
>
> Best of luck with the mutant angels...
>
> -- Warwick Bruce Chapman | +27 83 7797 094 | http://warwickchapman.com
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Hedrick Charles <hedrick at rutgers.edu>wrote:
>
>> 1.3.x is of historical interest only. I wouldn't use it for new deploys,
>> and I'd try to upgrade from it. Most current QA work is with 1.4, and
>> that's the version that has been reviewed for accessibility. I will say
>> that none of the fixes done since 1.3.x are what I'd call showstoppers, so
>> I don't feel that bad about 1.3.x. But it's not being maintained unless
>> someone finds a security problem or something really serious.
>>
>> There is no difference between 1.4.x and trunk, which is 1.5. They differ
>> only in that the pom files are turned for 2.9 or trunk, respectively. At
>> one point 1.4 was frozen for the 2.9 release. But when release of 2.9
>> slipped, the community encouraged me to resync 1.4.x with trunk. 1.4 will
>> freeze at some point further in the 2.9 release cycle.
>>
>> I think 1.4.x is fairly stable at this point. We're using the most recent
>> version in production. (In fact 1.4.x/trunk is simply the community copy of
>> our production source.) The largest change recently was code to make sure
>> that pointers to other tools update properly when content is moved between
>> sites, even in the face of incomplete kernel support. If that fails, it
>> should fail only for site copies, and so far testing looks good. Another
>> recent change was to take account of an accessibility review. None of this
>> looks to me like it's particularly dangerous.
>>
>> Rather than doing tags, I've been describing each update in the release
>> notes. That will let you see whether anything serious has been done
>> recently. As long as you remember that revision you took, I can reproduce
>> issues by checking out the same revision. There are tags from 1.3.x for
>> each 2.9 tag, of course.
>>
>> I'll probably do another 2.8.1 binary this week. That is done using a
>> special pom file that is currently in 1.3.x, pom.xml.281.
>>
>> I may freeze 1.4 again if I do anything really big. But nothing is on the
>> horizon. The biggest project I am committed to is CC export, though I keep
>> putting it off. That will be a separate feature that should have little
>> effect on other code.
>>
>> I also have some Angel import patches, but I haven't checked them in
>> because it looks like we're working with a mutant version of Angel.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2012, at 1:53:06 AM, Warwick Chapman wrote:
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> What would your advice be on the best version to build into a version
>> update of Sakai.  I had 1.3.x which we didn't use for any production
>> courses yet.  I've built in trunk to get the build process right (that
>> BasicLTI 2.0 had me for a while).
>>
>> Should I stick with trunk or use 1.4.x?
>>
>> -- Warwick Bruce Chapman | +27 83 7797 094 | http://warwickchapman.com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Charles Hedrick <hedrick at rutgers.edu>wrote:
>>
>>> I have just updated with Lesson Builder confluence page,
>>> https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/LB/Contrib+-+Lesson+Builder
>>> .
>>>
>>> One change: I am now maintaining a binary copy of Lesson Builder for
>>> Sakai 2.8.1. I believe it will also work with 2.8. It is at
>>> http://rci.rutgers.edu/~hedrick/lb/ The file name indicates the
>>> revision. This can be correlated with the release notes,
>>> https://source.sakaiproject.org/svn/lessonbuilder/RELEASE-NOTES, to see
>>> what is in any given file.
>>>
>>> Note that the binary is from the same source that is used for the Sakai
>>> 2.9 branch. It is built with the same options, except that it uses 2.8.1
>>> dependencies. It uses the pom file pom.xml.281, and a virgin (i.e. no
>>> Rutgers modified files) SVN repository.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sakai-dev mailing list
>>> sakai-dev at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-dev
>>>
>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to
>>> sakai-dev-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of
>>> "unsubscribe"
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai-dev/attachments/20120627/fe3af295/attachment.html 