You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net> on 2011/03/07 19:49:56 UTC
[Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Hi guys,
I was just wondering it wouldn't be a good time to schedule the M2 release.
Heavy refactoring have been done since the last M1 milestone, trunk is pretty stable now and the current activity is pretty low.
Before starting a new phase of heavy coding, it might be a good idea to get the M2 release in the hands of our users.
WDYT?
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
Thanks guys for struggling with this release.
Regards,
Alex
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>wrote:
> First deployment failed.
> All artifacts were not in the final repository.
>
> I fixed the pom files and I'm running another release ATM.
>
> Regards,
> Pierre-Arnaud
>
> On 10 mars 2011, at 17:14, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>wrote:
>
>> I fixed the remaining major PMD issues.
>>
>> As far as I understand it, the 'shared-ldap-client-all' project is meant
>> to only contain a minimal version of the dependencies needed to use the API,
>> the strict minimum.
>> I think we can release it as is and think about it a little more in M3.
>> Maybe it's not really required to have this project, 'shared-all' might be
>> enough.
>> Third parties dependencies being shaded in it also concerns me.
>>
>>
> Yes it's a dastardly approach. This idea you have of the OSGi bundle with
> jars inside sounds much better.
>
> Regards,
> Alex
>
>
>
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
First deployment failed.
All artifacts were not in the final repository.
I fixed the pom files and I'm running another release ATM.
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
On 10 mars 2011, at 17:14, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
> I fixed the remaining major PMD issues.
>
> As far as I understand it, the 'shared-ldap-client-all' project is meant to only contain a minimal version of the dependencies needed to use the API, the strict minimum.
> I think we can release it as is and think about it a little more in M3.
> Maybe it's not really required to have this project, 'shared-all' might be enough.
> Third parties dependencies being shaded in it also concerns me.
>
>
> Yes it's a dastardly approach. This idea you have of the OSGi bundle with jars inside sounds much better.
>
> Regards,
> Alex
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>wrote:
> I fixed the remaining major PMD issues.
>
> As far as I understand it, the 'shared-ldap-client-all' project is meant to
> only contain a minimal version of the dependencies needed to use the API,
> the strict minimum.
> I think we can release it as is and think about it a little more in M3.
> Maybe it's not really required to have this project, 'shared-all' might be
> enough.
> Third parties dependencies being shaded in it also concerns me.
>
>
Yes it's a dastardly approach. This idea you have of the OSGi bundle with
jars inside sounds much better.
Regards,
Alex
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
I fixed the remaining major PMD issues.
As far as I understand it, the 'shared-ldap-client-all' project is meant to only contain a minimal version of the dependencies needed to use the API, the strict minimum.
I think we can release it as is and think about it a little more in M3.
Maybe it's not really required to have this project, 'shared-all' might be enough.
Third parties dependencies being shaded in it also concerns me.
Ok guys, I will start the release process for M2, now.
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
On 9 mars 2011, at 19:55, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
> Ok guys,
>
> I think I fixed most of the required issues before the release of M2.
>
> I still have a couple of PMD errors to fix and see the 'shared-ldap-client-all' issue.
>
> I might be able to start a release tomorrow in the afternoon.
>
> Regards,
> Pierre-Arnaud
>
> On 8 mars 2011, at 09:50, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>
>> Please see DIRSHARED-99 and DIRSHARED-100.
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2011 9:18 AM, "Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot" <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
>> > Hi Stefan,
>> >
>> > On 7 mars 2011, at 22:11, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sure.
>> >>
>> >> I wanted to fix the legal issues, but I think I won't have time to
>> >> work on it before next weekend, and event then I'm not sure, sorry.
>> >
>> > Do you remember what kind of issues it was?
>> > I thought we had already fixed legal issues with the release of M1 and the various additions of 3rd parties licenses and attributions in the Notice files.
>> >
>> >> Another thing to check is that the distribution packages include all
>> >> dependencies.
>> >
>> > Yeah, that's also something I wanted to test before the release. Especially a standard logging implementation like Log4J (letting the ability to be replaced by another specific implementation if users prefer some other).
>> >
>> >> A last thing is that I'm confused about that new
>> >> shared-ldap-client-all module which shades lot of shared modules but
>> >> also 3rd party dependencies. I don't see what it is good for.
>> >
>> > I agree, shading all shared modules is a good idea but I'm not so sure about 3rd parties dependencies too.
>> > I guess the resulting jar should contain "shared"-only classes.
>> >
>> > I'll look into that if it's ok with everyone.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Pierre-Arnaud
>> >
>> >
>> >> Kind regards
>> >> Stefan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
>> >>> Hi guys,
>> >>>
>> >>> I was just wondering it wouldn't be a good time to schedule the M2 release.
>> >>>
>> >>> Heavy refactoring have been done since the last M1 milestone, trunk is pretty stable now and the current activity is pretty low.
>> >>>
>> >>> Before starting a new phase of heavy coding, it might be a good idea to get the M2 release in the hands of our users.
>> >>>
>> >>> WDYT?
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Pierre-Arnaud
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Ok guys,
I think I fixed most of the required issues before the release of M2.
I still have a couple of PMD errors to fix and see the 'shared-ldap-client-all' issue.
I might be able to start a release tomorrow in the afternoon.
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
On 8 mars 2011, at 09:50, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> Please see DIRSHARED-99 and DIRSHARED-100.
>
> On Mar 8, 2011 9:18 AM, "Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot" <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
> > Hi Stefan,
> >
> > On 7 mars 2011, at 22:11, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> >
> >> Sure.
> >>
> >> I wanted to fix the legal issues, but I think I won't have time to
> >> work on it before next weekend, and event then I'm not sure, sorry.
> >
> > Do you remember what kind of issues it was?
> > I thought we had already fixed legal issues with the release of M1 and the various additions of 3rd parties licenses and attributions in the Notice files.
> >
> >> Another thing to check is that the distribution packages include all
> >> dependencies.
> >
> > Yeah, that's also something I wanted to test before the release. Especially a standard logging implementation like Log4J (letting the ability to be replaced by another specific implementation if users prefer some other).
> >
> >> A last thing is that I'm confused about that new
> >> shared-ldap-client-all module which shades lot of shared modules but
> >> also 3rd party dependencies. I don't see what it is good for.
> >
> > I agree, shading all shared modules is a good idea but I'm not so sure about 3rd parties dependencies too.
> > I guess the resulting jar should contain "shared"-only classes.
> >
> > I'll look into that if it's ok with everyone.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pierre-Arnaud
> >
> >
> >> Kind regards
> >> Stefan
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
> >>> Hi guys,
> >>>
> >>> I was just wondering it wouldn't be a good time to schedule the M2 release.
> >>>
> >>> Heavy refactoring have been done since the last M1 milestone, trunk is pretty stable now and the current activity is pretty low.
> >>>
> >>> Before starting a new phase of heavy coding, it might be a good idea to get the M2 release in the hands of our users.
> >>>
> >>> WDYT?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Pierre-Arnaud
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Thanks Stefan.
On 8 mars 2011, at 09:50, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> Please see DIRSHARED-99 and DIRSHARED-100.
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Stefan Seelmann <ma...@stefan-seelmann.de>.
Please see DIRSHARED-99 and DIRSHARED-100.
On Mar 8, 2011 9:18 AM, "Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot" <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On 7 mars 2011, at 22:11, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>
>> Sure.
>>
>> I wanted to fix the legal issues, but I think I won't have time to
>> work on it before next weekend, and event then I'm not sure, sorry.
>
> Do you remember what kind of issues it was?
> I thought we had already fixed legal issues with the release of M1 and the
various additions of 3rd parties licenses and attributions in the Notice
files.
>
>> Another thing to check is that the distribution packages include all
>> dependencies.
>
> Yeah, that's also something I wanted to test before the release.
Especially a standard logging implementation like Log4J (letting the ability
to be replaced by another specific implementation if users prefer some
other).
>
>> A last thing is that I'm confused about that new
>> shared-ldap-client-all module which shades lot of shared modules but
>> also 3rd party dependencies. I don't see what it is good for.
>
> I agree, shading all shared modules is a good idea but I'm not so sure
about 3rd parties dependencies too.
> I guess the resulting jar should contain "shared"-only classes.
>
> I'll look into that if it's ok with everyone.
>
> Regards,
> Pierre-Arnaud
>
>
>> Kind regards
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>
wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> I was just wondering it wouldn't be a good time to schedule the M2
release.
>>>
>>> Heavy refactoring have been done since the last M1 milestone, trunk is
pretty stable now and the current activity is pretty low.
>>>
>>> Before starting a new phase of heavy coding, it might be a good idea to
get the M2 release in the hands of our users.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Pierre-Arnaud
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Hi Stefan,
On 7 mars 2011, at 22:11, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> Sure.
>
> I wanted to fix the legal issues, but I think I won't have time to
> work on it before next weekend, and event then I'm not sure, sorry.
Do you remember what kind of issues it was?
I thought we had already fixed legal issues with the release of M1 and the various additions of 3rd parties licenses and attributions in the Notice files.
> Another thing to check is that the distribution packages include all
> dependencies.
Yeah, that's also something I wanted to test before the release. Especially a standard logging implementation like Log4J (letting the ability to be replaced by another specific implementation if users prefer some other).
> A last thing is that I'm confused about that new
> shared-ldap-client-all module which shades lot of shared modules but
> also 3rd party dependencies. I don't see what it is good for.
I agree, shading all shared modules is a good idea but I'm not so sure about 3rd parties dependencies too.
I guess the resulting jar should contain "shared"-only classes.
I'll look into that if it's ok with everyone.
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
> Kind regards
> Stefan
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I was just wondering it wouldn't be a good time to schedule the M2 release.
>>
>> Heavy refactoring have been done since the last M1 milestone, trunk is pretty stable now and the current activity is pretty low.
>>
>> Before starting a new phase of heavy coding, it might be a good idea to get the M2 release in the hands of our users.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pierre-Arnaud
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>.
Sure.
I wanted to fix the legal issues, but I think I won't have time to
work on it before next weekend, and event then I'm not sure, sorry.
Another thing to check is that the distribution packages include all
dependencies.
A last thing is that I'm confused about that new
shared-ldap-client-all module which shades lot of shared modules but
also 3rd party dependencies. I don't see what it is good for.
Kind regards
Stefan
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I was just wondering it wouldn't be a good time to schedule the M2 release.
>
> Heavy refactoring have been done since the last M1 milestone, trunk is pretty stable now and the current activity is pretty low.
>
> Before starting a new phase of heavy coding, it might be a good idea to get the M2 release in the hands of our users.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards,
> Pierre-Arnaud
>
>
>
>
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Oh yeah.
Indeed. Good catch.
Thanks for keeping an eye on that, Felix... As always... ;-)
I also need to have a look at the generated LDAP API packages to see if all the dependencies are correctly bundled, making the API easy to use.
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
On 7 mars 2011, at 21:40, Felix Knecht wrote:
> We should at least fix following PMDs:
>
>
> Apache Directory Shared LDAP Model - org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/ldif/LdifControl.java
> Violation Line
> Ensure you override both equals() and hashCode() 122
>
> Apache Directory Shared LDAP Model - org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/message/controls/EntryChangeImpl.java
> Violation Line
> Ensure you override both equals() and hashCode() 93
>
> Apache Directory Shared LDAP Model - org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/message/controls/PagedResultsImpl.java
> Violation Line
> Ensure you override both equals() and hashCode() 136
>
> Apache Directory Shared LDAP Model - org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/message/controls/SubentriesImpl.java
> Violation Line
> Ensure you override both equals() and hashCode() 92
>
>
>
> On 03/07/2011 07:49 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I was just wondering it wouldn't be a good time to schedule the M2 release.
>>
>> Heavy refactoring have been done since the last M1 milestone, trunk is pretty stable now and the current activity is pretty low.
>>
>> Before starting a new phase of heavy coding, it might be a good idea to get the M2 release in the hands of our users.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pierre-Arnaud
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
On 3/7/11 9:40 PM, Felix Knecht wrote:
> We should at least fix following PMDs:
Sure. Let's do that.
>
>
> Apache Directory Shared LDAP Model -
> org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/ldif/LdifControl.java
> Violation Line
> Ensure you override both equals() and hashCode() 122
>
> Apache Directory Shared LDAP Model -
> org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/message/controls/EntryChangeImpl.java
> Violation Line
> Ensure you override both equals() and hashCode() 93
>
> Apache Directory Shared LDAP Model -
> org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/message/controls/PagedResultsImpl.java
> Violation Line
> Ensure you override both equals() and hashCode() 136
>
> Apache Directory Shared LDAP Model -
> org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/message/controls/SubentriesImpl.java
> Violation Line
> Ensure you override both equals() and hashCode() 92
>
>
>
> On 03/07/2011 07:49 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I was just wondering it wouldn't be a good time to schedule the M2
>> release.
>>
>> Heavy refactoring have been done since the last M1 milestone, trunk
>> is pretty stable now and the current activity is pretty low.
>>
>> Before starting a new phase of heavy coding, it might be a good idea
>> to get the M2 release in the hands of our users.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pierre-Arnaud
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
We should at least fix following PMDs:
Apache Directory Shared LDAP Model -
org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/ldif/LdifControl.java
Violation Line
Ensure you override both equals() and hashCode() 122
Apache Directory Shared LDAP Model -
org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/message/controls/EntryChangeImpl.java
Violation Line
Ensure you override both equals() and hashCode() 93
Apache Directory Shared LDAP Model -
org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/message/controls/PagedResultsImpl.java
Violation Line
Ensure you override both equals() and hashCode() 136
Apache Directory Shared LDAP Model -
org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/model/message/controls/SubentriesImpl.java
Violation Line
Ensure you override both equals() and hashCode() 92
On 03/07/2011 07:49 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I was just wondering it wouldn't be a good time to schedule the M2 release.
>
> Heavy refactoring have been done since the last M1 milestone, trunk is pretty stable now and the current activity is pretty low.
>
> Before starting a new phase of heavy coding, it might be a good idea to get the M2 release in the hands of our users.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards,
> Pierre-Arnaud
>
>
>
Re: [Shared] Is it time for the M2 release?
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
On 3/7/11 7:49 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I was just wondering it wouldn't be a good time to schedule the M2 release.
>
> Heavy refactoring have been done since the last M1 milestone, trunk is pretty stable now and the current activity is pretty low.
>
> Before starting a new phase of heavy coding, it might be a good idea to get the M2 release in the hands of our users.
>
> WDYT?
I'm ok for a M2
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com