You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@excalibur.apache.org by "Sasvata (Shash) Chatterjee" <sh...@badfw.org> on 2005/08/24 01:44:53 UTC
[PMC VOTE REQUEST] Excalibur Release
All,
Apologies in advance if this is not in the appropriate format for a vote
request, please feel free to correct me as required.
As discussed in several threads earlier, this is a request for a PMC
vote to release Avalon Framework 4.3, Avalon Logkit 2.1, Excalibur
Components 2.1, Cornerstone Components 2.1, and Fortress Container 1.2,
based on the earlier RC1-RC3 releases over the past few weeks.
There are several issues to consider, however, for the vote:
- As reported by Leif, qdox-1.5 has some incompatibilities when compared
to qdox-1.2 for Fortress meta-data. This can, hopefully, be worked
around in the immediate future by substituting qdox-1.2 in the final
application build, unitl a fix can be implemented in Fortress-meta, and
more importantly, in qdox.
- Vadim has suggested a change for removing thread-locals in LogKit. We
can go forever with issues every week, so my preference is to release
now without the fix. We can immediately turn around, put the fix in,
release a SNAPSHOT, and then wait for the next release <TBD>.
- There have been requests for Fortress meta data changes and additions
(in Cornerstone). These also can be worked around with configuration
files, for now, so I don't believe we should hold the release at the moment.
So, despite these issues, here's my +1 for a release. Community,
please provide feedback on your opinions, and PMC please provide your
votes. If passed, I'll plan on releasing on Sunday August 28th. If you
vote, -1, please don't do it because past history says we'll release
again only a year later, please do it for some other reason.
Thanks,
Shash
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Re: [PMC VOTE REQUEST] Excalibur Release
Posted by Leif Mortenson <le...@tanukisoftware.com>.
Sasvata (Shash) Chatterjee wrote:
> - As reported by Leif, qdox-1.5 has some incompatibilities when
> compared to qdox-1.2 for Fortress meta-data. This can, hopefully, be
> worked around in the immediate future by substituting qdox-1.2 in the
> final application build, unitl a fix can be implemented in
> Fortress-meta, and more importantly, in qdox.
I am not sure what all needs to be done to go back to using qdox 1.2.
If you simply
replace the jar you will get class incompatibility errors when running
the meta data ant
task.
The old qdox jar also does not take encoding into account. So I am not
sure if it is
actually any better or worse than the 1.5 jar. The jar is breaking with
a particular file
where the old one was not however.
Do we know anyone over at QDox who can report this to them? As stated
in the JIRA
issue, I have not yet reported it to them.
Cheers,
Leif
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Re: [PMC VOTE REQUEST] Excalibur Release
Posted by Shash Chatterjee <sh...@badfw.org>.
>
> i18n got dropped quite a while ago. I had created a branch here so I
> could make
> some changes. We were going to do one more release, but it never got
> done. I
> make heavy use of it, so another release would be nice. :-)
We use this as well, so +1 if this is to be resurrected.
Re: [PMC VOTE REQUEST] Excalibur Release
Posted by Leif Mortenson <le...@tanukisoftware.com>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> One question though; where these guys went:
>
> excalibur-i18n-1.1.jar
i18n got dropped quite a while ago. I had created a branch here so I
could make
some changes. We were going to do one more release, but it never got
done. I
make heavy use of it, so another release would be nice. :-)
It contains the ability to request resources for a particular Locale. I
use that
quite a bit within servlets.
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/excalibur/branches/i18n-Delete/
Cheers,
Leif
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Re: [PMC VOTE REQUEST] Excalibur Release
Posted by Shash Chatterjee <sh...@badfw.org>.
>
> excalibur-i18n-1.1.jar
> excalibur-io-1.1.jar
> excalibur-naming-1.0.jar
Adding, excalibur-configuration and excalibur-cache to this list, could
these be put back into the deprecated section?
That way we wouldn't put too much effort into maintaining, except for
making sure that they stayed compatible with Framework/Logkit releases.
We could host these in the Keel repo, but could we then keep the ASF
package naming?
Alternatively, maybe some project within ASF could host these?
Shash
Re: [PMC VOTE REQUEST] Excalibur Release
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Sasvata (Shash) Chatterjee wrote:
> Apologies in advance if this is not in the appropriate format for a vote
> request, please feel free to correct me as required.
[VOTE] is enough, pmc is implied.
> So, despite these issues, here's my +1 for a release. Community,
> please provide feedback on your opinions,
+1, looks good.
One question though; where these guys went:
excalibur-i18n-1.1.jar
excalibur-io-1.1.jar
excalibur-naming-1.0.jar
Thanks,
Vadim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Re: [PMC VOTE REQUEST] Excalibur Release
Posted by "Sasvata (Shash) Chatterjee" <sh...@badfw.org>.
Antonio,
>
> Last year, I fixed this incompatibility in cocoon. If this need to be
> fixed, I can try best this weekend. If the fix is not needed for this
> release, I will try to fix that after this weekend, please add a JIRA
> issue just to nor forgot about this. ;-)
>
Just so we know the scope of the change, what is involved in the fix?
Don't you need a fix in QDox for this?
Shash
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Re: [PMC VOTE REQUEST] Excalibur Release
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Sasvata (Shash) Chatterjee wrote:
> All,
>
> Apologies in advance if this is not in the appropriate format for a
> vote request, please feel free to correct me as required.
>
> As discussed in several threads earlier, this is a request for a PMC
> vote to release Avalon Framework 4.3, Avalon Logkit 2.1, Excalibur
> Components 2.1, Cornerstone Components 2.1, and Fortress Container
> 1.2, based on the earlier RC1-RC3 releases over the past few weeks.
>
> There are several issues to consider, however, for the vote:
>
> - As reported by Leif, qdox-1.5 has some incompatibilities when
> compared to qdox-1.2 for Fortress meta-data. This can, hopefully, be
> worked around in the immediate future by substituting qdox-1.2 in the
> final application build, unitl a fix can be implemented in
> Fortress-meta, and more importantly, in qdox.
Last year, I fixed this incompatibility in cocoon. If this need to be
fixed, I can try best this weekend. If the fix is not needed for this
release, I will try to fix that after this weekend, please add a JIRA
issue just to nor forgot about this. ;-)
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
> - Vadim has suggested a change for removing thread-locals in LogKit.
> We can go forever with issues every week, so my preference is to
> release now without the fix. We can immediately turn around, put the
> fix in, release a SNAPSHOT, and then wait for the next release <TBD>.
> - There have been requests for Fortress meta data changes and
> additions (in Cornerstone). These also can be worked around with
> configuration files, for now, so I don't believe we should hold the
> release at the moment.
>
> So, despite these issues, here's my +1 for a release. Community,
> please provide feedback on your opinions, and PMC please provide your
> votes. If passed, I'll plan on releasing on Sunday August 28th. If
> you vote, -1, please don't do it because past history says we'll
> release again only a year later, please do it for some other reason.
>
> Thanks,
> Shash
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Re: [PMC VOTE REQUEST] Excalibur Release
Posted by "Sasvata (Shash) Chatterjee" <sh...@badfw.org>.
Leo,
>Can you please provide a reference to the actual files as part of this
>thread?
>
>
>
You mean the actual JAR names and locations? Will do...soon, if that's
what you are asking.
>I might suggest delaying the fortress release and releasing everything else,
>but I'm not fully aware of the issues. Incompatibilities are bad.
>
>
>
The problem is that quite a few components reference Fortress-meta in
the project.xml as dependencies. Should we release those with
dependencies on fortress-meta 1.2-RC3? Doesn't feel quite right. If
this is indeed a blocker, then we might as well do a RC4 and if we do
that, we might as well fix Vadm's issue. OTOH, if Leif could live with
the old fortress-meta for a bit, then we could clean this up in a month
or so with a follow-on release.
Shash
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org
Re: [PMC VOTE REQUEST] Excalibur Release
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On 24-08-2005 01:44, "Sasvata (Shash) Chatterjee" <sh...@badfw.org> wrote:
> As discussed in several threads earlier, this is a request for a PMC
> vote to release Avalon Framework 4.3, Avalon Logkit 2.1, Excalibur
> Components 2.1, Cornerstone Components 2.1, and Fortress Container 1.2,
> based on the earlier RC1-RC3 releases over the past few weeks.
Can you please provide a reference to the actual files as part of this
thread?
> There are several issues to consider, however, for the vote:
>
> - As reported by Leif, qdox-1.5 has some incompatibilities when compared
> to qdox-1.2 for Fortress meta-data. This can, hopefully, be worked
> around in the immediate future by substituting qdox-1.2 in the final
> application build, unitl a fix can be implemented in Fortress-meta, and
> more importantly, in qdox.
I might suggest delaying the fortress release and releasing everything else,
but I'm not fully aware of the issues. Incompatibilities are bad.
> - Vadim has suggested a change for removing thread-locals in LogKit. We
> can go forever with issues every week, so my preference is to release
> now without the fix.
Yes. This problem is in the other releases as well so we can state the issue
is not fixed in the new release.
> We can immediately turn around, put the fix in,
> release a SNAPSHOT, and then wait for the next release <TBD>.
Yes.
> - There have been requests for Fortress meta data changes and additions
> (in Cornerstone). These also can be worked around with configuration
> files, for now, so I don't believe we should hold the release at the moment.
As long as the new releases are an improvement and don't introduce
incompatibilities or new bugs then we're not talking showstoppers.
> So, despite these issues, here's my +1 for a release. Community,
> please provide feedback on your opinions, and PMC please provide your
> votes. If passed, I'll plan on releasing on Sunday August 28th.
+0. I haven't had time to verify the RCs and won't be able to anytime soon.
Cheers!
Leo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@excalibur.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@excalibur.apache.org