Issue 45190 and Ant 1.7.1

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

Hi all,

I fixed https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45190 with
a rather trivial patch
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=668624 and now the
reporter asks whether this could go into 1.7.1.

While I understand that he needs the bug fixed, I also wouldn't want
to cause any delay of the 1.7.1 release.

Kev, would you accept the patch into the 1.7 branch and go ahead with
the release or would it slow you down if it got merged?

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: Issue 45190 and Ant 1.7.1

[Bruce Atherton <br...@callenish.com>]

I understand the sentiment, but the implication is that our releases are 
always identical to our betas. AFAIR we have never had that policy before.

The benefit to doing that is that we know we haven't added code that 
hasn't been through an adequate release cycle, no matter how trivial a 
change might be.

The downside, though, is that only really serious bugs tend to get 
addressed during a beta cycle, because people naturally want to minimize 
the number of betas that are released.

If we want to go that way, we should probably have a vote on it, IMHO.

Steve Loughran wrote:
>
> I'm more ruthless here, I'd stick it out and say 1.7.2. Otherwise more 
> bugs come in and get patched in late.
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: Issue 45190 and Ant 1.7.1

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org> wrote:

> I'm more ruthless here, I'd stick it out and say 1.7.2. Otherwise more
> bugs come in and get patched in late.

This sort of implies there would be a 1.7.2 and that we'd ge to
shorter release cycles.

I can live with either way.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: Issue 45190 and Ant 1.7.1

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Kevin Jackson <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No worries, I didn't take it as a negative comment, but I'm aware
> that I haven't been able to work on ant as much as I'd like this
> year ;)

I guess this is true for many of us (and in my case I'd replace this
year with "the past three years" or something like that).

Currenty I do hope to find a few cycles to spare over the next few
months, but I won't promise anything at this point of time.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: Issue 45190 and Ant 1.7.1

[Kevin Jackson <fo...@gmail.com>]

> If you feel you'd need a new beta, than I'd vote against including the
> patch.  I'd be +0 for including it without another beta.
>
>> (PS sorry about being slow getting 1.7.1 out,
>
> Just in case I've been misunderstood.  When I said that in retrospect
> we should have released 1.7.1 earlier I wasn't talking about the
> current release process but rather about the fact that it took us more
> than a year to actually think about that new release.

No worries, I didn't take it as a negative comment, but I'm aware that
I haven't been able to work on ant as much as I'd like this year ;)

Kev

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: Issue 45190 and Ant 1.7.1

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Kevin Jackson <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Since there seems to be a bit of a debate on the acceptance of late
> patches in the beta cycle, we should probably have a vote
> ---
> Do you think that a patch which *seems* like a trivial fix and has
> been accepted into SVN HEAD should be backported/merged into the
> current 'about to be released' beta/release?
> 
> Yes [ ]
> No [ ]
> Undecided [ x ]
> 
> ---

If you feel you'd need a new beta, than I'd vote against including the
patch.  I'd be +0 for including it without another beta.

> (PS sorry about being slow getting 1.7.1 out,

Just in case I've been misunderstood.  When I said that in retrospect
we should have released 1.7.1 earlier I wasn't talking about the
current release process but rather about the fact that it took us more
than a year to actually think about that new release.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: Issue 45190 and Ant 1.7.1

[Kevin Jackson <fo...@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

Since there seems to be a bit of a debate on the acceptance of late
patches in the beta cycle, we should probably have a vote
---
Do you think that a patch which *seems* like a trivial fix and has
been accepted into SVN HEAD should be backported/merged into the
current 'about to be released' beta/release?

Yes [ ]
No [ ]
Undecided [ x ]

---

Personally I can see benefits from both sides:
- As I have to go through the entire release process to get the next
release out of the door, does it matter if a new bit of code is added?
- On the other hand, we shouldn't add anything late as it encourages
late cycle changes (which leads to more chances for bugs to creep in
and also to less testing of the release code)

I'll make my decision as to whether to allow this particular patch in
based on the vote - I'm personally -0 at the moment (I don't think
anything should be changed with code/docs for 1.7.1), but if people
can present a compelling argument then I may be swayed to accept this
patch (which I guess will mean a further beta release and another
testing period)

(PS sorry about being slow getting 1.7.1 out, I'm in the process of
moving to Europe so I'm finding free time difficult to come by right
now)

Thanks,
Kev

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: Issue 45190 and Ant 1.7.1

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Guntis Ozols <gu...@latnet.lv> wrote:

> Anyway, if the code is too fragile to survive even
> the slightest change, can docs be safely fixed instead?
> 
> I am writing this because I stumbled over
> 41201 "[jar-task] wrong name for services folder" recently.
> The latest and greatest docs at
> http://ant.apache.org/manual/CoreTasks/jar.html
> still says that service element is supported since ant 1.7.0.

That is because the online docs are always those of the latest
release, i.e. they are no more ecurrent than they have been by the end
of December 2006.

> This bug was reported before 1.7.0 was released,

A few hours before, yes.  At that point in time we had already voted
on the binaries and the release may even have been inside the primary
download area waiting for mirrors to sync before the announcement goes
out.

In retrospect I agree the bug was reported too late for the 1.7.0
release.  We should probably have release 1.7.1 earlier, than we do,
though.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: Issue 45190 and Ant 1.7.1

[Guntis Ozols <gu...@latnet.lv>]

>>> I fixed https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45190 with
>>> a rather trivial patch
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=668624 and now the
>>> reporter asks whether this could go into 1.7.1.
>
> I'm more ruthless here, I'd stick it out and say 1.7.2. Otherwise more
> bugs come in and get patched in late.

What a bureaucracy (if the fix is trivial)...
The only good bug is a fixed bug.

Anyway, if the code is too fragile to survive even
the slightest change, can docs be safely fixed instead?

I am writing this because I stumbled over
41201 "[jar-task] wrong name for services folder" recently.
The latest and greatest docs at
http://ant.apache.org/manual/CoreTasks/jar.html
still says that service element is supported since ant 1.7.0.

This bug was reported before 1.7.0 was released,
and the fix was sooooo trivial (1 char)!

18 months later there are only 5 bugs marked as duplicates of it, hooray.

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41201



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: Issue 45190 and Ant 1.7.1

[Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>]

Kevin Jackson wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
>> I fixed https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45190 with
>> a rather trivial patch
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=668624 and now the
>> reporter asks whether this could go into 1.7.1.
>>
>> While I understand that he needs the bug fixed, I also wouldn't want
>> to cause any delay of the 1.7.1 release.
>>
>> Kev, would you accept the patch into the 1.7 branch and go ahead with
>> the release or would it slow you down if it got merged?
> 
> If I accepted this, would I need to re-issue a beta and wait the
> required time for people to retest before starting the release
> process?

I'm more ruthless here, I'd stick it out and say 1.7.2. Otherwise more 
bugs come in and get patched in late.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: Issue 45190 and Ant 1.7.1

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Kevin Jackson <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Stefan,
> 
>> I fixed https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45190
>> with a rather trivial patch
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=668624 and now the
>> reporter asks whether this could go into 1.7.1.
>>
>> While I understand that he needs the bug fixed, I also wouldn't
>> want to cause any delay of the 1.7.1 release.
>>
>> Kev, would you accept the patch into the 1.7 branch and go ahead
>> with the release or would it slow you down if it got merged?
> 
> If I accepted this, would I need to re-issue a beta and wait the
> required time for people to retest before starting the release
> process?

I don't think so, the change is pretty trivial.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: Issue 45190 and Ant 1.7.1

[Kevin Jackson <fo...@gmail.com>]

Hi Stefan,

> I fixed https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45190 with
> a rather trivial patch
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=668624 and now the
> reporter asks whether this could go into 1.7.1.
>
> While I understand that he needs the bug fixed, I also wouldn't want
> to cause any delay of the 1.7.1 release.
>
> Kev, would you accept the patch into the 1.7 branch and go ahead with
> the release or would it slow you down if it got merged?

If I accepted this, would I need to re-issue a beta and wait the
required time for people to retest before starting the release
process?

I'm only happy to accept it if this has no bearing on the release
process right now :)

I'm currently on holiday (from work) with some folks over from Oz, so
my free coding/releasing time is quite low right now.  I hope to have
time in the next week or so to start the release - I don't really want
to delay and have a beta3/4 release and then be releasing the final
version sometime in September! :)

Thanks,
Kev

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org