You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jspwiki.apache.org by Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> on 2013/11/05 16:50:21 UTC
Kick out 2.9.1
Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a lot be
going on.
I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
Cheers,
Juergen
Re: Maven Build fails - Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi Siegfried,
mvn clean install should be enough. I ran across a similar OOME, turned out
it was caused b/c I didn't had access to a tmp folder generated by a test.
But I think that shouldn't happen anymore on current trunk..
Would you mind running an mvn clean install -Dtest= JSPWikiMarkupParserTest
to see if that test is causing the OOME? Also checking access of tmp files
generated by tests. They should be loaded by the TestEngine (don't hace
access to svn right now, I'm writting on phone - btw apologies for typos
introduced by spellchecker).
HTH,
juan pablo
El 06/11/2013 10:27, "Jürgen Weber" <ju...@jwi.de> escribió:
> mvn package
> works for me:
>
> [INFO] Total time: 5:32.174s
> [INFO] Finished at: Wed Nov 06 10:18:16 CET 2013
> [INFO] Final Memory: 31M/223M
>
> ll jspwiki-war/target/
> total 12048
> ....
> -rw-r--r-- 1 weberjn users 11182025 Nov 6 10:18 JSPWiki.war
>
> But this builds 2.10,
>
> whereas in http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/jspwiki/2.9.1-incubating/
> there is JSPWiki-2.9.1-incubating-4-bin.zip
> which is not in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jspwiki/tags/
> Am 05.11.2013 21:03 schrieb "Siegfried Goeschl" <sg...@gmx.at>:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > sort of confused - the M2 build is actually 2.10.0-SNAPSHOT and not 2.9.1
> >
> > For the records
> >
> > MAVEN_OPTS=-XX:MaxPermSize=256m -Xmx768m
> >
> > trunk> mvn -v
> > Apache Maven 3.0.4 (r1232337; 2012-01-17 09:44:56+0100)
> > Maven home: /Applications/Java/apache-maven-3.0.4
> > Java version: 1.6.0_31, vendor: Apple Inc.
> > Java home: /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/1.6.0_31-
> > b04-415.jdk/Contents/Home
> > Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: MacRoman
> > OS name: "mac os x", version: "10.8.5", arch: "x86_64", family: "mac"
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Siegfried Goeschl
> >
> > On 05.11.13 20:39, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> >
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> had a look at trunk but I'm unable to run the tests
> >>
> >> > mvn clean install
> >>
> >> Anything I do wrong?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance
> >>
> >> Siegfried Goeschl
> >>
> >> Tests run: 188, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 58.537
> >> sec <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.wiki.parser.JSPWikiMarkupParserTest
> >> org.apache.wiki.parser.JSPWikiMarkupParserTest Time elapsed: 16.113 sec
> >> <<< ERROR!
> >> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
> >> at java.nio.ByteBuffer.wrap(ByteBuffer.java:350)
> >> at java.lang.StringCoding$StringDecoder.decode(
> >> StringCoding.java:137)
> >> at java.lang.StringCoding.decode(StringCoding.java:173)
> >> at java.lang.String.<init>(String.java:443)
> >> at java.util.jar.Attributes.read(Attributes.java:401)
> >> at java.util.jar.Manifest.read(Manifest.java:182)
> >> at java.util.jar.Manifest.<init>(Manifest.java:52)
> >> at java.util.jar.JarFile.getManifestFromReference(JarFile.java:167)
> >> at java.util.jar.JarFile.getManifest(JarFile.java:148)
> >> at
> >> sun.misc.URLClassPath$JarLoader$2.getManifest(URLClassPath.java:696)
> >> at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:228)
> >> at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$000(URLClassLoader.java:58)
> >> at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:197)
> >> at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
> >> at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:190)
> >> at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:306)
> >> at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:301)
> >> at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:247)
> >> at
> >> org.apache.maven.surefire.common.junit4.JUnit4RunListener.
> >> createStackTraceWriter(JUnit4RunListener.java:121)
> >>
> >> at
> >> org.apache.maven.surefire.common.junit4.JUnit4RunListener.testFailure(
> >> JUnit4RunListener.java:105)
> >>
> >> at
> >> org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier$4.notifyListener(
> >> RunNotifier.java:139)
> >>
> >> at
> >> org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier$SafeNotifier.run(
> >> RunNotifier.java:61)
> >>
> >> at
> >> org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier.fireTestFailures(
> >> RunNotifier.java:134)
> >>
> >> at
> >> org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier.fireTestFailure(
> >> RunNotifier.java:128)
> >>
> >> at
> >> org.junit.internal.runners.JUnit38ClassRunner$
> >> OldTestClassAdaptingListener.addError(JUnit38ClassRunner.java:41)
> >>
> >> at junit.framework.TestResult.addError(TestResult.java:39)
> >> at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:148)
> >> at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:125)
> >> at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:129)
> >> at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:255)
> >> at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:250)
> >> at
> >> org.junit.internal.runners.JUnit38ClassRunner.run(
> >> JUnit38ClassRunner.java:84)
> >>
> >>
> >> Running org.apache.wiki.parser.MarkupParserTest
> >> Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.666
> >> sec - in org.apache.wiki.parser.MarkupParserTest
> >> Running org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest
> >> Tests run: 6, Failures: 0, Errors: 6, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 15.325
> >> sec <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest
> >> testSimpleCount(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed:
> >> 7.877 sec <<< ERROR!
> >> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
> >>
> >> testSimpleVar(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed:
> >> 1.217 sec <<< ERROR!
> >> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
> >>
> >> testTwinVar(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed:
> >> 1.269 sec <<< ERROR!
> >> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
> >>
> >> testShow(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed: 1.211
> >> sec <<< ERROR!
> >> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 05.11.13 16:50, Jürgen Weber wrote:
> >>
> >>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a lot
> be
> >>> going on.
> >>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> >>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Juergen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Maven Build fails - Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de>.
mvn package
works for me:
[INFO] Total time: 5:32.174s
[INFO] Finished at: Wed Nov 06 10:18:16 CET 2013
[INFO] Final Memory: 31M/223M
ll jspwiki-war/target/
total 12048
....
-rw-r--r-- 1 weberjn users 11182025 Nov 6 10:18 JSPWiki.war
But this builds 2.10,
whereas in http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/jspwiki/2.9.1-incubating/
there is JSPWiki-2.9.1-incubating-4-bin.zip
which is not in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jspwiki/tags/
Am 05.11.2013 21:03 schrieb "Siegfried Goeschl" <sg...@gmx.at>:
> Hi folks,
>
> sort of confused - the M2 build is actually 2.10.0-SNAPSHOT and not 2.9.1
>
> For the records
>
> MAVEN_OPTS=-XX:MaxPermSize=256m -Xmx768m
>
> trunk> mvn -v
> Apache Maven 3.0.4 (r1232337; 2012-01-17 09:44:56+0100)
> Maven home: /Applications/Java/apache-maven-3.0.4
> Java version: 1.6.0_31, vendor: Apple Inc.
> Java home: /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/1.6.0_31-
> b04-415.jdk/Contents/Home
> Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: MacRoman
> OS name: "mac os x", version: "10.8.5", arch: "x86_64", family: "mac"
>
> Cheers,
>
> Siegfried Goeschl
>
> On 05.11.13 20:39, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> had a look at trunk but I'm unable to run the tests
>>
>> > mvn clean install
>>
>> Anything I do wrong?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Siegfried Goeschl
>>
>> Tests run: 188, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 58.537
>> sec <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.wiki.parser.JSPWikiMarkupParserTest
>> org.apache.wiki.parser.JSPWikiMarkupParserTest Time elapsed: 16.113 sec
>> <<< ERROR!
>> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>> at java.nio.ByteBuffer.wrap(ByteBuffer.java:350)
>> at java.lang.StringCoding$StringDecoder.decode(
>> StringCoding.java:137)
>> at java.lang.StringCoding.decode(StringCoding.java:173)
>> at java.lang.String.<init>(String.java:443)
>> at java.util.jar.Attributes.read(Attributes.java:401)
>> at java.util.jar.Manifest.read(Manifest.java:182)
>> at java.util.jar.Manifest.<init>(Manifest.java:52)
>> at java.util.jar.JarFile.getManifestFromReference(JarFile.java:167)
>> at java.util.jar.JarFile.getManifest(JarFile.java:148)
>> at
>> sun.misc.URLClassPath$JarLoader$2.getManifest(URLClassPath.java:696)
>> at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:228)
>> at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$000(URLClassLoader.java:58)
>> at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:197)
>> at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
>> at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:190)
>> at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:306)
>> at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:301)
>> at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:247)
>> at
>> org.apache.maven.surefire.common.junit4.JUnit4RunListener.
>> createStackTraceWriter(JUnit4RunListener.java:121)
>>
>> at
>> org.apache.maven.surefire.common.junit4.JUnit4RunListener.testFailure(
>> JUnit4RunListener.java:105)
>>
>> at
>> org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier$4.notifyListener(
>> RunNotifier.java:139)
>>
>> at
>> org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier$SafeNotifier.run(
>> RunNotifier.java:61)
>>
>> at
>> org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier.fireTestFailures(
>> RunNotifier.java:134)
>>
>> at
>> org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier.fireTestFailure(
>> RunNotifier.java:128)
>>
>> at
>> org.junit.internal.runners.JUnit38ClassRunner$
>> OldTestClassAdaptingListener.addError(JUnit38ClassRunner.java:41)
>>
>> at junit.framework.TestResult.addError(TestResult.java:39)
>> at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:148)
>> at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:125)
>> at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:129)
>> at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:255)
>> at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:250)
>> at
>> org.junit.internal.runners.JUnit38ClassRunner.run(
>> JUnit38ClassRunner.java:84)
>>
>>
>> Running org.apache.wiki.parser.MarkupParserTest
>> Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.666
>> sec - in org.apache.wiki.parser.MarkupParserTest
>> Running org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest
>> Tests run: 6, Failures: 0, Errors: 6, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 15.325
>> sec <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest
>> testSimpleCount(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed:
>> 7.877 sec <<< ERROR!
>> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>>
>> testSimpleVar(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed:
>> 1.217 sec <<< ERROR!
>> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>>
>> testTwinVar(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed:
>> 1.269 sec <<< ERROR!
>> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>>
>> testShow(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed: 1.211
>> sec <<< ERROR!
>> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05.11.13 16:50, Jürgen Weber wrote:
>>
>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a lot be
>>> going on.
>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Maven Build fails - Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Siegfried Goeschl <sg...@gmx.at>.
Hi folks,
sort of confused - the M2 build is actually 2.10.0-SNAPSHOT and not 2.9.1
For the records
MAVEN_OPTS=-XX:MaxPermSize=256m -Xmx768m
trunk> mvn -v
Apache Maven 3.0.4 (r1232337; 2012-01-17 09:44:56+0100)
Maven home: /Applications/Java/apache-maven-3.0.4
Java version: 1.6.0_31, vendor: Apple Inc.
Java home:
/Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/1.6.0_31-b04-415.jdk/Contents/Home
Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: MacRoman
OS name: "mac os x", version: "10.8.5", arch: "x86_64", family: "mac"
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
On 05.11.13 20:39, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> had a look at trunk but I'm unable to run the tests
>
> > mvn clean install
>
> Anything I do wrong?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Siegfried Goeschl
>
> Tests run: 188, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 58.537
> sec <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.wiki.parser.JSPWikiMarkupParserTest
> org.apache.wiki.parser.JSPWikiMarkupParserTest Time elapsed: 16.113 sec
> <<< ERROR!
> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
> at java.nio.ByteBuffer.wrap(ByteBuffer.java:350)
> at java.lang.StringCoding$StringDecoder.decode(StringCoding.java:137)
> at java.lang.StringCoding.decode(StringCoding.java:173)
> at java.lang.String.<init>(String.java:443)
> at java.util.jar.Attributes.read(Attributes.java:401)
> at java.util.jar.Manifest.read(Manifest.java:182)
> at java.util.jar.Manifest.<init>(Manifest.java:52)
> at java.util.jar.JarFile.getManifestFromReference(JarFile.java:167)
> at java.util.jar.JarFile.getManifest(JarFile.java:148)
> at
> sun.misc.URLClassPath$JarLoader$2.getManifest(URLClassPath.java:696)
> at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:228)
> at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$000(URLClassLoader.java:58)
> at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:197)
> at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
> at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:190)
> at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:306)
> at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:301)
> at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:247)
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.common.junit4.JUnit4RunListener.createStackTraceWriter(JUnit4RunListener.java:121)
>
> at
> org.apache.maven.surefire.common.junit4.JUnit4RunListener.testFailure(JUnit4RunListener.java:105)
>
> at
> org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier$4.notifyListener(RunNotifier.java:139)
>
> at
> org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier$SafeNotifier.run(RunNotifier.java:61)
>
> at
> org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier.fireTestFailures(RunNotifier.java:134)
>
> at
> org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier.fireTestFailure(RunNotifier.java:128)
>
> at
> org.junit.internal.runners.JUnit38ClassRunner$OldTestClassAdaptingListener.addError(JUnit38ClassRunner.java:41)
>
> at junit.framework.TestResult.addError(TestResult.java:39)
> at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:148)
> at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:125)
> at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:129)
> at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:255)
> at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:250)
> at
> org.junit.internal.runners.JUnit38ClassRunner.run(JUnit38ClassRunner.java:84)
>
>
> Running org.apache.wiki.parser.MarkupParserTest
> Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.666
> sec - in org.apache.wiki.parser.MarkupParserTest
> Running org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest
> Tests run: 6, Failures: 0, Errors: 6, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 15.325
> sec <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest
> testSimpleCount(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed:
> 7.877 sec <<< ERROR!
> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>
> testSimpleVar(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed:
> 1.217 sec <<< ERROR!
> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>
> testTwinVar(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed:
> 1.269 sec <<< ERROR!
> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>
> testShow(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed: 1.211
> sec <<< ERROR!
> java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
>
>
>
> On 05.11.13 16:50, Jürgen Weber wrote:
>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a lot be
>> going on.
>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Juergen
>>
>
Maven Build fails - Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Siegfried Goeschl <sg...@gmx.at>.
Hi folks,
had a look at trunk but I'm unable to run the tests
> mvn clean install
Anything I do wrong?
Thanks in advance
Siegfried Goeschl
Tests run: 188, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 58.537
sec <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.wiki.parser.JSPWikiMarkupParserTest
org.apache.wiki.parser.JSPWikiMarkupParserTest Time elapsed: 16.113 sec
<<< ERROR!
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
at java.nio.ByteBuffer.wrap(ByteBuffer.java:350)
at java.lang.StringCoding$StringDecoder.decode(StringCoding.java:137)
at java.lang.StringCoding.decode(StringCoding.java:173)
at java.lang.String.<init>(String.java:443)
at java.util.jar.Attributes.read(Attributes.java:401)
at java.util.jar.Manifest.read(Manifest.java:182)
at java.util.jar.Manifest.<init>(Manifest.java:52)
at java.util.jar.JarFile.getManifestFromReference(JarFile.java:167)
at java.util.jar.JarFile.getManifest(JarFile.java:148)
at sun.misc.URLClassPath$JarLoader$2.getManifest(URLClassPath.java:696)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:228)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$000(URLClassLoader.java:58)
at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:197)
at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:190)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:306)
at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:301)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:247)
at
org.apache.maven.surefire.common.junit4.JUnit4RunListener.createStackTraceWriter(JUnit4RunListener.java:121)
at
org.apache.maven.surefire.common.junit4.JUnit4RunListener.testFailure(JUnit4RunListener.java:105)
at
org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier$4.notifyListener(RunNotifier.java:139)
at
org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier$SafeNotifier.run(RunNotifier.java:61)
at
org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier.fireTestFailures(RunNotifier.java:134)
at
org.junit.runner.notification.RunNotifier.fireTestFailure(RunNotifier.java:128)
at
org.junit.internal.runners.JUnit38ClassRunner$OldTestClassAdaptingListener.addError(JUnit38ClassRunner.java:41)
at junit.framework.TestResult.addError(TestResult.java:39)
at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:148)
at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:125)
at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:129)
at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:255)
at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:250)
at
org.junit.internal.runners.JUnit38ClassRunner.run(JUnit38ClassRunner.java:84)
Running org.apache.wiki.parser.MarkupParserTest
Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.666
sec - in org.apache.wiki.parser.MarkupParserTest
Running org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest
Tests run: 6, Failures: 0, Errors: 6, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 15.325
sec <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest
testSimpleCount(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed:
7.877 sec <<< ERROR!
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
testSimpleVar(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed:
1.217 sec <<< ERROR!
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
testTwinVar(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed:
1.269 sec <<< ERROR!
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
testShow(org.apache.wiki.plugin.CounterPluginTest) Time elapsed: 1.211
sec <<< ERROR!
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
On 05.11.13 16:50, Jürgen Weber wrote:
> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a lot be
> going on.
> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>
> Cheers,
> Juergen
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
No, not if we have nothing significant to add. Volunteers can't afford
to be engaging in busywork. And, yes, projects are allowed to go on
snooze between releases.
Glen
On 11/08/2013 03:08 PM, Jürgen Weber wrote:
> no difference, but it should be soon. Last incubating is from May, so it
> looks like not a lot happens. An project should be alive and kicking and
> release often.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> 2013/11/8 Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>
>
>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
>> The latter has more issues fixed...
>>
>> regards,
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> +1 too
>>>>
>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back o.a.w.WikiException
>> (deleted
>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two similar
>>> changes,
>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release 2.10.0
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the release on
>>> ASF's
>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> br,
>>>> juan pablo
>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com> escribió:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a
>> lot
>>>> be
>>>>>> going on.
>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de>.
no difference, but it should be soon. Last incubating is from May, so it
looks like not a lot happens. An project should be alive and kicking and
release often.
Juergen
2013/11/8 Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>
> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
> The latter has more issues fixed...
>
> regards,
> Harry
>
>
>
> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
> > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > +1 too
> > >
> > > In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back o.a.w.WikiException
> (deleted
> > > in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two similar
> > changes,
> > > have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release 2.10.0
> > >
> > > I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the release on
> > ASF's
> > > maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
> > >
> > > br,
> > > juan pablo
> > > El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com> escribió:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a
> lot
> > > be
> > > > > going on.
> > > > > I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> > > > > Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Juergen
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>.
That is OK too.
Thx,
Harry
Op 22 dec. 2013 21:36 schreef "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
> Hi Harry,
>
> I think I've come up with what's causing the stacktrace, I've tried with
> $svn/tags/jspwiki_2_9_1_rc2 and, the class being basically the same, these
> stacktraces don't show up. However, there's one significant difference on
> .check():
>
> catch( EmptyStackException e )
> {
> // FIXME: Do something?
> }
>
> which is why we've never seen the trace before.
>
> Further analysis, the traces are being caused by
> WatchDog.WatchDogThread.background(): there's an iterator on c_kennel, in
> which, for each alive WatchDog (w), w.check() is called. Most of the time,
> each of the WatchDogs called on this iterator c_kennel yields the
> EmptyStackException, most probably due to the being under very low load,
> that is one person testing against the wiki. 99% of the time, tomcat
> threads are causing this issue (not always, and happening no matter tomcat
> 6 or 7). Occasionally a Lucene or EhCache background thread shows up on the
> stacktraces, but that as well might be ok, as c_kennel is holding
> WeakReferences.
>
> So I'd rather go on WatchDog.WatchDogThread.backgroundTask() replacing:
> if( w != null ) {
> if( w.m_watchable != null &&
> w.m_watchable.isAlive() ) {
> w.check();
> } else {
> c_kennel.remove( entry.getKey() );
> break;
> }
> }
>
> with something on the lines of:
> if( w != null ) {
> if( w.m_watchable != null &&
> w.m_watchable.isAlive() && associatedStateStackIsNotEmpty( w ) ) {
> w.check();
> } else {
> [...]
>
> boolean associatedStateStackIsNotEmpty( WatchDog w ) { // this could
> be as well a WatchDog method
> return w.m_stateStack != null && !w.m_stateStack.isEmpty();
> }
>
>
> WDYT?
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Harry Metske <harry.metske@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Juan Pablo,
> >
> > I had a further look at the WatchDog issue.
> > First, the overhead is quite minimal, we have just one extra thread, that
> > regularly "opens the kennel" and checks the WatchDogs.
> > Now, the EmptyStackException is just a simple bug in WatchDog.check(),
> I'd
> > like to fix it with a simple extra check for a zero-size m_stateCheck at
> > line 263.
> >
> >
> > synchronized( m_stateStack ) {
> > try {
> > if (m_stateStack.size() > 0) {
> > WatchDog.State st = m_stateStack.peek();
> >
> > long now = System.currentTimeMillis();
> >
> > I cannot explain why this hasn't been seen earlier.
> >
> > kind regards,
> > Harry
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20 December 2013 23:23, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm moving open issues on JIRA scheduled for 2.10 version to 2.10.1 and
> > > calling the vote in a few minutes. Regarding the staging repo, I've
> > opened
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7125 to track what's
> > happening
> > > with it. We'll have the old-good fashioned convenience binaries
> > meanwhile.
> > >
> > >
> > > br,
> > > juan pablo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Checks for long running threads are made by the appserver.
> > > >
> > > > Jürgen
> > > > Am 19.12.2013 06:54 schrieb "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Also, I was wondering why we need this WatchDog thing altogether.
> > > > > I understand that it should notify (log a message) when a Thread
> > takes
> > > > too
> > > > > long to end, but to be honest I have never seen such a warning.
> > > > > The cons are :
> > > > > * it clutters up our code
> > > > > * leaves running threads behing when the webapp is stopped (Tomcat
> > > > > complains about it), for example the Lucene Indexer, RSS generator,
> > and
> > > > > more)
> > > > > * for every request we make 2 WatchDogs (WikiJSPPFilter), and if
> I'm
> > > > > correct that means 2 Threads created/destroyed, I would think
> that's
> > > > quite
> > > > > some overhead (I could do some measurements on that).
> > > > > * it now also pollutes the log (but we might fix that)
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT ?
> > > > >
> > > > > kind regards,
> > > > > Harry
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 18 December 2013 22:14, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Harry,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I had a lot of those while testing before r1551702, due to
> > > > > > o.a.w.tags.SearchResultIteratorInfo containing a String with an
> > > > incorrect
> > > > > > classname. I'm currently re-trying to close the repo*, but I'll
> > > recheck
> > > > > on
> > > > > > that too to make sure everything is ok in order to proceed with
> > > voting
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > br,
> > > > > > juan pablo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * my current plan is to try 2 or 3 more times in the following
> > hours,
> > > > > while
> > > > > > updating the "How to release" instructions at jspwiki.a.o. If
> > > tomorrow
> > > > > > morning the repo persists in not being closed, I'll upload the
> repo
> > > > > > artifacts somewhere at people.a.o to start the vote with some
> > > > convenience
> > > > > > binaries. Later on we can mark that staging repo as closed +
> > > released,
> > > > so
> > > > > > binaries effectively reach Central..
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Harry Metske <
> > > harry.metske@gmail.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Juan Pablo,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > first, thanks for all your efforts, I too appreciate !
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have been testing the trunk, the only thing I could find
> until
> > > now
> > > > is
> > > > > > > every 30 seconds a couple of these in the jspwiki.log:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2013-12-18 20:44:11,954 ERROR org.apache.wiki.WatchDog - Stack
> is
> > > > > empty!
> > > > > > > java.util.EmptyStackException
> > > > > > > at java.util.Stack.peek(Stack.java:102)
> > > > > > > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.check(WatchDog.java:264)
> > > > > > > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.access$300(WatchDog.java:52)
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.wiki.WatchDog$WatchDogThread.backgroundTask(WatchDog.java:371)
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> org.apache.wiki.WikiBackgroundThread.run(WikiBackgroundThread.java:118)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm investigating it currently...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > kind regards,
> > > > > > > Harry
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 18 December 2013 02:00, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > > > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > quick note, as it's nearly 2.00am here; done almost all steps
> > > > > required
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > publish all artifacts on a staging repo, which the vote is
> > going
> > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > against. Currently blocked by a nexus timeout on closing the
> > > > staging
> > > > > > > repo,
> > > > > > > > progress can be followed at
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7105.
> > > > > > > > Once this is fixed (hopefully by tomorrow..), the vote for
> > 2.10.0
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > will be called.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > br,
> > > > > > > > juan pablo
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > > > > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Juan Pablo,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I will play around with the current trunk :-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:03, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > > > > > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > just finished doing a big bunch of pending refactors
> prior
> > to
> > > > > > > releasing
> > > > > > > > > > 2.10. We should be able to end up with all the artifacts
> on
> > > > maven
> > > > > > > > central
> > > > > > > > > > too (once the vote+release passes), and use a staged
> > > > > repository[#1]
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > instead of uploading to somewhere at people.a.o
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There are only a couple of points remaining: updating
> > > UPGRADING
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > ReleaseNotes and ensuring all the prerequisites of [#1]
> are
> > > > met.
> > > > > > > > > Hopefully,
> > > > > > > > > > they will be done between today and tomorrow. In the
> > > meantime,
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > call for testing current trunk, which is going to be most
> > > > likely
> > > > > > > > 2.10.0.
> > > > > > > > > > I've tried to test all the recent commits (and will
> > continue
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > more testing), but for sure the more people looking into
> it
> > > > > before
> > > > > > > > voting
> > > > > > > > > > the release, the better.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > thanks + br,
> > > > > > > > > > juan pablo
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [#1]:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > > > > > > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Hi folks,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> IMHO it is important to get the release out
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> * users are looking at project activity - there are many
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > wikis
> > > > > > > > > >> out there ...
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> * are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would
> appreciate?
> > > > Better
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >> small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest
> > > release
> > > > 9
> > > > > > > months
> > > > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > > >> the road (which might get delayed later on)
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk
> > in
> > > > any
> > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility.
> > If
> > > we
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > >>> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with
> > > > latest
> > > > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > > > >>> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could
> copy
> > > > those
> > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > >>> back
> > > > > > > > > >>> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some
> > > > duplicated
> > > > > > > > > classes)
> > > > > > > > > >>> or
> > > > > > > > > >>> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to
> > > 2.9.2,
> > > > > > > > because I
> > > > > > > > > >>> was
> > > > > > > > > >>> having in mind further similar refactorings with the
> rest
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > managers
> > > > > > > > > >>> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend
> > time
> > > > > > coding
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > >>> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to
> allow
> > > us
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > deploy
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central.
> > Once
> > > > that
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > done,
> > > > > > > > > >>> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> br,
> > > > > > > > > >>> juan pablo
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <
> > > > > > glen.mazza@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1
> > product
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > >>>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very
> > > > > Apache-esque
> > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is
> not
> > an
> > > > > > > indicator
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.)
> > If
> > > > none
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > >>>> right
> > > > > > > > > >>>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope
> > > changes
> > > > > > soon
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >>>> me),
> > > > > > > > > >>>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the
> situation.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Glen
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> regards,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Harry
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <
> juergen@jwi.de
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> +1
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos
> > > Rodríguez"
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> +1 too
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back
> > > > > > > o.a.w.WikiException
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> (deleted
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one
> > or
> > > > two
> > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> changes,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should
> > > release
> > > > > > > 2.10.0
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to
> > publish
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ASF's
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> br,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> juan pablo
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <
> > > > > harry.metske@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> escribió:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> +1
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <
> > > juergen@jwi.de>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely,
> > there
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > not a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> lot
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> going on.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from
> > incubator.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi Harry,
I think I've come up with what's causing the stacktrace, I've tried with
$svn/tags/jspwiki_2_9_1_rc2 and, the class being basically the same, these
stacktraces don't show up. However, there's one significant difference on
.check():
catch( EmptyStackException e )
{
// FIXME: Do something?
}
which is why we've never seen the trace before.
Further analysis, the traces are being caused by
WatchDog.WatchDogThread.background(): there's an iterator on c_kennel, in
which, for each alive WatchDog (w), w.check() is called. Most of the time,
each of the WatchDogs called on this iterator c_kennel yields the
EmptyStackException, most probably due to the being under very low load,
that is one person testing against the wiki. 99% of the time, tomcat
threads are causing this issue (not always, and happening no matter tomcat
6 or 7). Occasionally a Lucene or EhCache background thread shows up on the
stacktraces, but that as well might be ok, as c_kennel is holding
WeakReferences.
So I'd rather go on WatchDog.WatchDogThread.backgroundTask() replacing:
if( w != null ) {
if( w.m_watchable != null &&
w.m_watchable.isAlive() ) {
w.check();
} else {
c_kennel.remove( entry.getKey() );
break;
}
}
with something on the lines of:
if( w != null ) {
if( w.m_watchable != null &&
w.m_watchable.isAlive() && associatedStateStackIsNotEmpty( w ) ) {
w.check();
} else {
[...]
boolean associatedStateStackIsNotEmpty( WatchDog w ) { // this could
be as well a WatchDog method
return w.m_stateStack != null && !w.m_stateStack.isEmpty();
}
WDYT?
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Juan Pablo,
>
> I had a further look at the WatchDog issue.
> First, the overhead is quite minimal, we have just one extra thread, that
> regularly "opens the kennel" and checks the WatchDogs.
> Now, the EmptyStackException is just a simple bug in WatchDog.check(), I'd
> like to fix it with a simple extra check for a zero-size m_stateCheck at
> line 263.
>
>
> synchronized( m_stateStack ) {
> try {
> if (m_stateStack.size() > 0) {
> WatchDog.State st = m_stateStack.peek();
>
> long now = System.currentTimeMillis();
>
> I cannot explain why this hasn't been seen earlier.
>
> kind regards,
> Harry
>
>
>
> On 20 December 2013 23:23, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm moving open issues on JIRA scheduled for 2.10 version to 2.10.1 and
> > calling the vote in a few minutes. Regarding the staging repo, I've
> opened
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7125 to track what's
> happening
> > with it. We'll have the old-good fashioned convenience binaries
> meanwhile.
> >
> >
> > br,
> > juan pablo
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Checks for long running threads are made by the appserver.
> > >
> > > Jürgen
> > > Am 19.12.2013 06:54 schrieb "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Also, I was wondering why we need this WatchDog thing altogether.
> > > > I understand that it should notify (log a message) when a Thread
> takes
> > > too
> > > > long to end, but to be honest I have never seen such a warning.
> > > > The cons are :
> > > > * it clutters up our code
> > > > * leaves running threads behing when the webapp is stopped (Tomcat
> > > > complains about it), for example the Lucene Indexer, RSS generator,
> and
> > > > more)
> > > > * for every request we make 2 WatchDogs (WikiJSPPFilter), and if I'm
> > > > correct that means 2 Threads created/destroyed, I would think that's
> > > quite
> > > > some overhead (I could do some measurements on that).
> > > > * it now also pollutes the log (but we might fix that)
> > > >
> > > > WDYT ?
> > > >
> > > > kind regards,
> > > > Harry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 18 December 2013 22:14, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Harry,
> > > > >
> > > > > I had a lot of those while testing before r1551702, due to
> > > > > o.a.w.tags.SearchResultIteratorInfo containing a String with an
> > > incorrect
> > > > > classname. I'm currently re-trying to close the repo*, but I'll
> > recheck
> > > > on
> > > > > that too to make sure everything is ok in order to proceed with
> > voting
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > br,
> > > > > juan pablo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > * my current plan is to try 2 or 3 more times in the following
> hours,
> > > > while
> > > > > updating the "How to release" instructions at jspwiki.a.o. If
> > tomorrow
> > > > > morning the repo persists in not being closed, I'll upload the repo
> > > > > artifacts somewhere at people.a.o to start the vote with some
> > > convenience
> > > > > binaries. Later on we can mark that staging repo as closed +
> > released,
> > > so
> > > > > binaries effectively reach Central..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Harry Metske <
> > harry.metske@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Juan Pablo,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > first, thanks for all your efforts, I too appreciate !
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have been testing the trunk, the only thing I could find until
> > now
> > > is
> > > > > > every 30 seconds a couple of these in the jspwiki.log:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2013-12-18 20:44:11,954 ERROR org.apache.wiki.WatchDog - Stack is
> > > > empty!
> > > > > > java.util.EmptyStackException
> > > > > > at java.util.Stack.peek(Stack.java:102)
> > > > > > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.check(WatchDog.java:264)
> > > > > > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.access$300(WatchDog.java:52)
> > > > > > at
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > org.apache.wiki.WatchDog$WatchDogThread.backgroundTask(WatchDog.java:371)
> > > > > > at
> > > > > >
> > > org.apache.wiki.WikiBackgroundThread.run(WikiBackgroundThread.java:118)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm investigating it currently...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > kind regards,
> > > > > > Harry
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 18 December 2013 02:00, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > quick note, as it's nearly 2.00am here; done almost all steps
> > > > required
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > publish all artifacts on a staging repo, which the vote is
> going
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > run
> > > > > > > against. Currently blocked by a nexus timeout on closing the
> > > staging
> > > > > > repo,
> > > > > > > progress can be followed at
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7105.
> > > > > > > Once this is fixed (hopefully by tomorrow..), the vote for
> 2.10.0
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > will be called.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > br,
> > > > > > > juan pablo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > > > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Juan Pablo,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I will play around with the current trunk :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:03, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > > > > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > just finished doing a big bunch of pending refactors prior
> to
> > > > > > releasing
> > > > > > > > > 2.10. We should be able to end up with all the artifacts on
> > > maven
> > > > > > > central
> > > > > > > > > too (once the vote+release passes), and use a staged
> > > > repository[#1]
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > instead of uploading to somewhere at people.a.o
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are only a couple of points remaining: updating
> > UPGRADING
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > ReleaseNotes and ensuring all the prerequisites of [#1] are
> > > met.
> > > > > > > > Hopefully,
> > > > > > > > > they will be done between today and tomorrow. In the
> > meantime,
> > > > this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > call for testing current trunk, which is going to be most
> > > likely
> > > > > > > 2.10.0.
> > > > > > > > > I've tried to test all the recent commits (and will
> continue
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > more testing), but for sure the more people looking into it
> > > > before
> > > > > > > voting
> > > > > > > > > the release, the better.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > thanks + br,
> > > > > > > > > juan pablo
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [#1]:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > > > > > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Hi folks,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> IMHO it is important to get the release out
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> * users are looking at project activity - there are many
> > > > different
> > > > > > > wikis
> > > > > > > > >> out there ...
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> * are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would appreciate?
> > > Better
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest
> > release
> > > 9
> > > > > > months
> > > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > >> the road (which might get delayed later on)
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk
> in
> > > any
> > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility.
> If
> > we
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > >>> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with
> > > latest
> > > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > > >>> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy
> > > those
> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > >>> back
> > > > > > > > >>> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some
> > > duplicated
> > > > > > > > classes)
> > > > > > > > >>> or
> > > > > > > > >>> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to
> > 2.9.2,
> > > > > > > because I
> > > > > > > > >>> was
> > > > > > > > >>> having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > managers
> > > > > > > > >>> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend
> time
> > > > > coding
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > >>> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow
> > us
> > > to
> > > > > > > deploy
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central.
> Once
> > > that
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > done,
> > > > > > > > >>> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> br,
> > > > > > > > >>> juan pablo
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <
> > > > > glen.mazza@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1
> product
> > > > just
> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > >>>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very
> > > > Apache-esque
> > > > > > way
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not
> an
> > > > > > indicator
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.)
> If
> > > none
> > > > > of
> > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > >>>> right
> > > > > > > > >>>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope
> > changes
> > > > > soon
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >>>> me),
> > > > > > > > >>>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Glen
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
> > > > > > > > >>>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> regards,
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Harry
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <juergen@jwi.de
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> +1
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos
> > Rodríguez"
> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> +1 too
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back
> > > > > > o.a.w.WikiException
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> (deleted
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one
> or
> > > two
> > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> changes,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should
> > release
> > > > > > 2.10.0
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to
> publish
> > > the
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ASF's
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> br,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> juan pablo
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <
> > > > harry.metske@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> escribió:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> +1
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <
> > juergen@jwi.de>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely,
> there
> > > > seems
> > > > > > > not a
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> lot
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> going on.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from
> incubator.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>.
Juan Pablo,
I had a further look at the WatchDog issue.
First, the overhead is quite minimal, we have just one extra thread, that
regularly "opens the kennel" and checks the WatchDogs.
Now, the EmptyStackException is just a simple bug in WatchDog.check(), I'd
like to fix it with a simple extra check for a zero-size m_stateCheck at
line 263.
synchronized( m_stateStack ) {
try {
if (m_stateStack.size() > 0) {
WatchDog.State st = m_stateStack.peek();
long now = System.currentTimeMillis();
I cannot explain why this hasn't been seen earlier.
kind regards,
Harry
On 20 December 2013 23:23, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm moving open issues on JIRA scheduled for 2.10 version to 2.10.1 and
> calling the vote in a few minutes. Regarding the staging repo, I've opened
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7125 to track what's happening
> with it. We'll have the old-good fashioned convenience binaries meanwhile.
>
>
> br,
> juan pablo
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Checks for long running threads are made by the appserver.
> >
> > Jürgen
> > Am 19.12.2013 06:54 schrieb "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Also, I was wondering why we need this WatchDog thing altogether.
> > > I understand that it should notify (log a message) when a Thread takes
> > too
> > > long to end, but to be honest I have never seen such a warning.
> > > The cons are :
> > > * it clutters up our code
> > > * leaves running threads behing when the webapp is stopped (Tomcat
> > > complains about it), for example the Lucene Indexer, RSS generator, and
> > > more)
> > > * for every request we make 2 WatchDogs (WikiJSPPFilter), and if I'm
> > > correct that means 2 Threads created/destroyed, I would think that's
> > quite
> > > some overhead (I could do some measurements on that).
> > > * it now also pollutes the log (but we might fix that)
> > >
> > > WDYT ?
> > >
> > > kind regards,
> > > Harry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 18 December 2013 22:14, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Harry,
> > > >
> > > > I had a lot of those while testing before r1551702, due to
> > > > o.a.w.tags.SearchResultIteratorInfo containing a String with an
> > incorrect
> > > > classname. I'm currently re-trying to close the repo*, but I'll
> recheck
> > > on
> > > > that too to make sure everything is ok in order to proceed with
> voting
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > br,
> > > > juan pablo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * my current plan is to try 2 or 3 more times in the following hours,
> > > while
> > > > updating the "How to release" instructions at jspwiki.a.o. If
> tomorrow
> > > > morning the repo persists in not being closed, I'll upload the repo
> > > > artifacts somewhere at people.a.o to start the vote with some
> > convenience
> > > > binaries. Later on we can mark that staging repo as closed +
> released,
> > so
> > > > binaries effectively reach Central..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Harry Metske <
> harry.metske@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Juan Pablo,
> > > > >
> > > > > first, thanks for all your efforts, I too appreciate !
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been testing the trunk, the only thing I could find until
> now
> > is
> > > > > every 30 seconds a couple of these in the jspwiki.log:
> > > > >
> > > > > 2013-12-18 20:44:11,954 ERROR org.apache.wiki.WatchDog - Stack is
> > > empty!
> > > > > java.util.EmptyStackException
> > > > > at java.util.Stack.peek(Stack.java:102)
> > > > > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.check(WatchDog.java:264)
> > > > > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.access$300(WatchDog.java:52)
> > > > > at
> > > > >
> > >
> org.apache.wiki.WatchDog$WatchDogThread.backgroundTask(WatchDog.java:371)
> > > > > at
> > > > >
> > org.apache.wiki.WikiBackgroundThread.run(WikiBackgroundThread.java:118)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm investigating it currently...
> > > > >
> > > > > kind regards,
> > > > > Harry
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 18 December 2013 02:00, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > quick note, as it's nearly 2.00am here; done almost all steps
> > > required
> > > > to
> > > > > > publish all artifacts on a staging repo, which the vote is going
> to
> > > be
> > > > > run
> > > > > > against. Currently blocked by a nexus timeout on closing the
> > staging
> > > > > repo,
> > > > > > progress can be followed at
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7105.
> > > > > > Once this is fixed (hopefully by tomorrow..), the vote for 2.10.0
> > > > release
> > > > > > will be called.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > br,
> > > > > > juan pablo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Juan Pablo,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will play around with the current trunk :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:03, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > > > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > just finished doing a big bunch of pending refactors prior to
> > > > > releasing
> > > > > > > > 2.10. We should be able to end up with all the artifacts on
> > maven
> > > > > > central
> > > > > > > > too (once the vote+release passes), and use a staged
> > > repository[#1]
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > instead of uploading to somewhere at people.a.o
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are only a couple of points remaining: updating
> UPGRADING
> > > and
> > > > > > > > ReleaseNotes and ensuring all the prerequisites of [#1] are
> > met.
> > > > > > > Hopefully,
> > > > > > > > they will be done between today and tomorrow. In the
> meantime,
> > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > call for testing current trunk, which is going to be most
> > likely
> > > > > > 2.10.0.
> > > > > > > > I've tried to test all the recent commits (and will continue
> to
> > > do
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > more testing), but for sure the more people looking into it
> > > before
> > > > > > voting
> > > > > > > > the release, the better.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks + br,
> > > > > > > > juan pablo
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [#1]:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > > > > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Hi folks,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> IMHO it is important to get the release out
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> * users are looking at project activity - there are many
> > > different
> > > > > > wikis
> > > > > > > >> out there ...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> * are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would appreciate?
> > Better
> > > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest
> release
> > 9
> > > > > months
> > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > >> the road (which might get delayed later on)
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk in
> > any
> > > > > case,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility. If
> we
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > >>> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with
> > latest
> > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > >>> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy
> > those
> > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > >>> back
> > > > > > > >>> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some
> > duplicated
> > > > > > > classes)
> > > > > > > >>> or
> > > > > > > >>> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to
> 2.9.2,
> > > > > > because I
> > > > > > > >>> was
> > > > > > > >>> having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > managers
> > > > > > > >>> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend time
> > > > coding
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > >>> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow
> us
> > to
> > > > > > deploy
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central. Once
> > that
> > > > is
> > > > > > > done,
> > > > > > > >>> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> br,
> > > > > > > >>> juan pablo
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <
> > > > glen.mazza@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product
> > > just
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > >>>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very
> > > Apache-esque
> > > > > way
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an
> > > > > indicator
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If
> > none
> > > > of
> > > > > us
> > > > > > > >>>> right
> > > > > > > >>>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope
> changes
> > > > soon
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >>>> me),
> > > > > > > >>>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Glen
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
> > > > > > > >>>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> regards,
> > > > > > > >>>>> Harry
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> +1
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos
> Rodríguez"
> > <
> > > > > > > >>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> +1 too
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back
> > > > > o.a.w.WikiException
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> (deleted
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or
> > two
> > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> changes,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should
> release
> > > > > 2.10.0
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish
> > the
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> ASF's
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> br,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> juan pablo
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <
> > > harry.metske@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> escribió:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> +1
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <
> juergen@jwi.de>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there
> > > seems
> > > > > > not a
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> lot
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> going on.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I'm moving open issues on JIRA scheduled for 2.10 version to 2.10.1 and
calling the vote in a few minutes. Regarding the staging repo, I've opened
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7125 to track what's happening
with it. We'll have the old-good fashioned convenience binaries meanwhile.
br,
juan pablo
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> +1
>
> Checks for long running threads are made by the appserver.
>
> Jürgen
> Am 19.12.2013 06:54 schrieb "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Also, I was wondering why we need this WatchDog thing altogether.
> > I understand that it should notify (log a message) when a Thread takes
> too
> > long to end, but to be honest I have never seen such a warning.
> > The cons are :
> > * it clutters up our code
> > * leaves running threads behing when the webapp is stopped (Tomcat
> > complains about it), for example the Lucene Indexer, RSS generator, and
> > more)
> > * for every request we make 2 WatchDogs (WikiJSPPFilter), and if I'm
> > correct that means 2 Threads created/destroyed, I would think that's
> quite
> > some overhead (I could do some measurements on that).
> > * it now also pollutes the log (but we might fix that)
> >
> > WDYT ?
> >
> > kind regards,
> > Harry
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18 December 2013 22:14, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Harry,
> > >
> > > I had a lot of those while testing before r1551702, due to
> > > o.a.w.tags.SearchResultIteratorInfo containing a String with an
> incorrect
> > > classname. I'm currently re-trying to close the repo*, but I'll recheck
> > on
> > > that too to make sure everything is ok in order to proceed with voting
> > >
> > >
> > > br,
> > > juan pablo
> > >
> > >
> > > * my current plan is to try 2 or 3 more times in the following hours,
> > while
> > > updating the "How to release" instructions at jspwiki.a.o. If tomorrow
> > > morning the repo persists in not being closed, I'll upload the repo
> > > artifacts somewhere at people.a.o to start the vote with some
> convenience
> > > binaries. Later on we can mark that staging repo as closed + released,
> so
> > > binaries effectively reach Central..
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Harry Metske <harry.metske@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Juan Pablo,
> > > >
> > > > first, thanks for all your efforts, I too appreciate !
> > > >
> > > > I have been testing the trunk, the only thing I could find until now
> is
> > > > every 30 seconds a couple of these in the jspwiki.log:
> > > >
> > > > 2013-12-18 20:44:11,954 ERROR org.apache.wiki.WatchDog - Stack is
> > empty!
> > > > java.util.EmptyStackException
> > > > at java.util.Stack.peek(Stack.java:102)
> > > > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.check(WatchDog.java:264)
> > > > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.access$300(WatchDog.java:52)
> > > > at
> > > >
> > org.apache.wiki.WatchDog$WatchDogThread.backgroundTask(WatchDog.java:371)
> > > > at
> > > >
> org.apache.wiki.WikiBackgroundThread.run(WikiBackgroundThread.java:118)
> > > >
> > > > I'm investigating it currently...
> > > >
> > > > kind regards,
> > > > Harry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 18 December 2013 02:00, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > quick note, as it's nearly 2.00am here; done almost all steps
> > required
> > > to
> > > > > publish all artifacts on a staging repo, which the vote is going to
> > be
> > > > run
> > > > > against. Currently blocked by a nexus timeout on closing the
> staging
> > > > repo,
> > > > > progress can be followed at
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7105.
> > > > > Once this is fixed (hopefully by tomorrow..), the vote for 2.10.0
> > > release
> > > > > will be called.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > br,
> > > > > juan pablo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Juan Pablo,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will play around with the current trunk :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:03, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > just finished doing a big bunch of pending refactors prior to
> > > > releasing
> > > > > > > 2.10. We should be able to end up with all the artifacts on
> maven
> > > > > central
> > > > > > > too (once the vote+release passes), and use a staged
> > repository[#1]
> > > > to
> > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > instead of uploading to somewhere at people.a.o
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are only a couple of points remaining: updating UPGRADING
> > and
> > > > > > > ReleaseNotes and ensuring all the prerequisites of [#1] are
> met.
> > > > > > Hopefully,
> > > > > > > they will be done between today and tomorrow. In the meantime,
> > this
> > > > is
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > call for testing current trunk, which is going to be most
> likely
> > > > > 2.10.0.
> > > > > > > I've tried to test all the recent commits (and will continue to
> > do
> > > > some
> > > > > > > more testing), but for sure the more people looking into it
> > before
> > > > > voting
> > > > > > > the release, the better.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks + br,
> > > > > > > juan pablo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [#1]:
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > > > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Hi folks,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> IMHO it is important to get the release out
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> * users are looking at project activity - there are many
> > different
> > > > > wikis
> > > > > > >> out there ...
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> * are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would appreciate?
> Better
> > > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > >> small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest release
> 9
> > > > months
> > > > > > down
> > > > > > >> the road (which might get delayed later on)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk in
> any
> > > > case,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility. If we
> > > > release
> > > > > > >>> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with
> latest
> > > > > release,
> > > > > > >>> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy
> those
> > > > > classes
> > > > > > >>> back
> > > > > > >>> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some
> duplicated
> > > > > > classes)
> > > > > > >>> or
> > > > > > >>> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to 2.9.2,
> > > > > because I
> > > > > > >>> was
> > > > > > >>> having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest of
> > the
> > > > > > managers
> > > > > > >>> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend time
> > > coding
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > >>> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow us
> to
> > > > > deploy
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >>> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central. Once
> that
> > > is
> > > > > > done,
> > > > > > >>> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> br,
> > > > > > >>> juan pablo
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <
> > > glen.mazza@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product
> > just
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > >>>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very
> > Apache-esque
> > > > way
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >>>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an
> > > > indicator
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >>>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If
> none
> > > of
> > > > us
> > > > > > >>>> right
> > > > > > >>>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope changes
> > > soon
> > > > > with
> > > > > > >>>> me),
> > > > > > >>>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Glen
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
> > > > > > >>>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> regards,
> > > > > > >>>>> Harry
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> +1
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez"
> <
> > > > > > >>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> +1 too
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back
> > > > o.a.w.WikiException
> > > > > > >>>>>>> (deleted
> > > > > > >>>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or
> two
> > > > > similar
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> changes,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release
> > > > 2.10.0
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish
> the
> > > > > release
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> ASF's
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> br,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> juan pablo
> > > > > > >>>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <
> > harry.metske@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> escribió:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> +1
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there
> > seems
> > > > > not a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> lot
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> going on.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de>.
+1
Checks for long running threads are made by the appserver.
Jürgen
Am 19.12.2013 06:54 schrieb "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> Also, I was wondering why we need this WatchDog thing altogether.
> I understand that it should notify (log a message) when a Thread takes too
> long to end, but to be honest I have never seen such a warning.
> The cons are :
> * it clutters up our code
> * leaves running threads behing when the webapp is stopped (Tomcat
> complains about it), for example the Lucene Indexer, RSS generator, and
> more)
> * for every request we make 2 WatchDogs (WikiJSPPFilter), and if I'm
> correct that means 2 Threads created/destroyed, I would think that's quite
> some overhead (I could do some measurements on that).
> * it now also pollutes the log (but we might fix that)
>
> WDYT ?
>
> kind regards,
> Harry
>
>
>
> On 18 December 2013 22:14, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Harry,
> >
> > I had a lot of those while testing before r1551702, due to
> > o.a.w.tags.SearchResultIteratorInfo containing a String with an incorrect
> > classname. I'm currently re-trying to close the repo*, but I'll recheck
> on
> > that too to make sure everything is ok in order to proceed with voting
> >
> >
> > br,
> > juan pablo
> >
> >
> > * my current plan is to try 2 or 3 more times in the following hours,
> while
> > updating the "How to release" instructions at jspwiki.a.o. If tomorrow
> > morning the repo persists in not being closed, I'll upload the repo
> > artifacts somewhere at people.a.o to start the vote with some convenience
> > binaries. Later on we can mark that staging repo as closed + released, so
> > binaries effectively reach Central..
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Harry Metske <harry.metske@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Juan Pablo,
> > >
> > > first, thanks for all your efforts, I too appreciate !
> > >
> > > I have been testing the trunk, the only thing I could find until now is
> > > every 30 seconds a couple of these in the jspwiki.log:
> > >
> > > 2013-12-18 20:44:11,954 ERROR org.apache.wiki.WatchDog - Stack is
> empty!
> > > java.util.EmptyStackException
> > > at java.util.Stack.peek(Stack.java:102)
> > > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.check(WatchDog.java:264)
> > > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.access$300(WatchDog.java:52)
> > > at
> > >
> org.apache.wiki.WatchDog$WatchDogThread.backgroundTask(WatchDog.java:371)
> > > at
> > > org.apache.wiki.WikiBackgroundThread.run(WikiBackgroundThread.java:118)
> > >
> > > I'm investigating it currently...
> > >
> > > kind regards,
> > > Harry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 18 December 2013 02:00, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > quick note, as it's nearly 2.00am here; done almost all steps
> required
> > to
> > > > publish all artifacts on a staging repo, which the vote is going to
> be
> > > run
> > > > against. Currently blocked by a nexus timeout on closing the staging
> > > repo,
> > > > progress can be followed at
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7105.
> > > > Once this is fixed (hopefully by tomorrow..), the vote for 2.10.0
> > release
> > > > will be called.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > br,
> > > > juan pablo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Juan Pablo,
> > > > >
> > > > > I will play around with the current trunk :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:03, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > just finished doing a big bunch of pending refactors prior to
> > > releasing
> > > > > > 2.10. We should be able to end up with all the artifacts on maven
> > > > central
> > > > > > too (once the vote+release passes), and use a staged
> repository[#1]
> > > to
> > > > > vote
> > > > > > instead of uploading to somewhere at people.a.o
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are only a couple of points remaining: updating UPGRADING
> and
> > > > > > ReleaseNotes and ensuring all the prerequisites of [#1] are met.
> > > > > Hopefully,
> > > > > > they will be done between today and tomorrow. In the meantime,
> this
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > call for testing current trunk, which is going to be most likely
> > > > 2.10.0.
> > > > > > I've tried to test all the recent commits (and will continue to
> do
> > > some
> > > > > > more testing), but for sure the more people looking into it
> before
> > > > voting
> > > > > > the release, the better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks + br,
> > > > > > juan pablo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [#1]:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi folks,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> IMHO it is important to get the release out
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> * users are looking at project activity - there are many
> different
> > > > wikis
> > > > > >> out there ...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> * are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would appreciate? Better
> > > have
> > > > a
> > > > > >> small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest release 9
> > > months
> > > > > down
> > > > > >> the road (which might get delayed later on)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk in any
> > > case,
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility. If we
> > > release
> > > > > >>> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with latest
> > > > release,
> > > > > >>> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy those
> > > > classes
> > > > > >>> back
> > > > > >>> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some duplicated
> > > > > classes)
> > > > > >>> or
> > > > > >>> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to 2.9.2,
> > > > because I
> > > > > >>> was
> > > > > >>> having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest of
> the
> > > > > managers
> > > > > >>> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend time
> > coding
> > > > > these
> > > > > >>> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow us to
> > > > deploy
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central. Once that
> > is
> > > > > done,
> > > > > >>> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> br,
> > > > > >>> juan pablo
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <
> > glen.mazza@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product
> just
> > > > > without
> > > > > >>>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very
> Apache-esque
> > > way
> > > > of
> > > > > >>>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an
> > > indicator
> > > > > of
> > > > > >>>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If none
> > of
> > > us
> > > > > >>>> right
> > > > > >>>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope changes
> > soon
> > > > with
> > > > > >>>> me),
> > > > > >>>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Glen
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
> > > > > >>>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> regards,
> > > > > >>>>> Harry
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> +1
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
> > > > > >>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> +1 too
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back
> > > o.a.w.WikiException
> > > > > >>>>>>> (deleted
> > > > > >>>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two
> > > > similar
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> changes,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release
> > > 2.10.0
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the
> > > > release
> > > > > on
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> ASF's
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> br,
> > > > > >>>>>>> juan pablo
> > > > > >>>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <
> harry.metske@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>> escribió:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> +1
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there
> seems
> > > > not a
> > > > > >>>>>>>> lot
> > > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > > >>>>>>>> going on.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>.
Also, I was wondering why we need this WatchDog thing altogether.
I understand that it should notify (log a message) when a Thread takes too
long to end, but to be honest I have never seen such a warning.
The cons are :
* it clutters up our code
* leaves running threads behing when the webapp is stopped (Tomcat
complains about it), for example the Lucene Indexer, RSS generator, and
more)
* for every request we make 2 WatchDogs (WikiJSPPFilter), and if I'm
correct that means 2 Threads created/destroyed, I would think that's quite
some overhead (I could do some measurements on that).
* it now also pollutes the log (but we might fix that)
WDYT ?
kind regards,
Harry
On 18 December 2013 22:14, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Harry,
>
> I had a lot of those while testing before r1551702, due to
> o.a.w.tags.SearchResultIteratorInfo containing a String with an incorrect
> classname. I'm currently re-trying to close the repo*, but I'll recheck on
> that too to make sure everything is ok in order to proceed with voting
>
>
> br,
> juan pablo
>
>
> * my current plan is to try 2 or 3 more times in the following hours, while
> updating the "How to release" instructions at jspwiki.a.o. If tomorrow
> morning the repo persists in not being closed, I'll upload the repo
> artifacts somewhere at people.a.o to start the vote with some convenience
> binaries. Later on we can mark that staging repo as closed + released, so
> binaries effectively reach Central..
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Harry Metske <harry.metske@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Juan Pablo,
> >
> > first, thanks for all your efforts, I too appreciate !
> >
> > I have been testing the trunk, the only thing I could find until now is
> > every 30 seconds a couple of these in the jspwiki.log:
> >
> > 2013-12-18 20:44:11,954 ERROR org.apache.wiki.WatchDog - Stack is empty!
> > java.util.EmptyStackException
> > at java.util.Stack.peek(Stack.java:102)
> > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.check(WatchDog.java:264)
> > at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.access$300(WatchDog.java:52)
> > at
> > org.apache.wiki.WatchDog$WatchDogThread.backgroundTask(WatchDog.java:371)
> > at
> > org.apache.wiki.WikiBackgroundThread.run(WikiBackgroundThread.java:118)
> >
> > I'm investigating it currently...
> >
> > kind regards,
> > Harry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18 December 2013 02:00, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > quick note, as it's nearly 2.00am here; done almost all steps required
> to
> > > publish all artifacts on a staging repo, which the vote is going to be
> > run
> > > against. Currently blocked by a nexus timeout on closing the staging
> > repo,
> > > progress can be followed at
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7105.
> > > Once this is fixed (hopefully by tomorrow..), the vote for 2.10.0
> release
> > > will be called.
> > >
> > >
> > > br,
> > > juan pablo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Juan Pablo,
> > > >
> > > > I will play around with the current trunk :-)
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Siegfried Goeschl
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:03, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > just finished doing a big bunch of pending refactors prior to
> > releasing
> > > > > 2.10. We should be able to end up with all the artifacts on maven
> > > central
> > > > > too (once the vote+release passes), and use a staged repository[#1]
> > to
> > > > vote
> > > > > instead of uploading to somewhere at people.a.o
> > > > >
> > > > > There are only a couple of points remaining: updating UPGRADING and
> > > > > ReleaseNotes and ensuring all the prerequisites of [#1] are met.
> > > > Hopefully,
> > > > > they will be done between today and tomorrow. In the meantime, this
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > call for testing current trunk, which is going to be most likely
> > > 2.10.0.
> > > > > I've tried to test all the recent commits (and will continue to do
> > some
> > > > > more testing), but for sure the more people looking into it before
> > > voting
> > > > > the release, the better.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks + br,
> > > > > juan pablo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [#1]:
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi folks,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> IMHO it is important to get the release out
> > > > >>
> > > > >> * users are looking at project activity - there are many different
> > > wikis
> > > > >> out there ...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> * are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would appreciate? Better
> > have
> > > a
> > > > >> small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest release 9
> > months
> > > > down
> > > > >> the road (which might get delayed later on)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk in any
> > case,
> > > > the
> > > > >>> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility. If we
> > release
> > > > >>> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with latest
> > > release,
> > > > >>> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy those
> > > classes
> > > > >>> back
> > > > >>> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some duplicated
> > > > classes)
> > > > >>> or
> > > > >>> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to 2.9.2,
> > > because I
> > > > >>> was
> > > > >>> having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest of the
> > > > managers
> > > > >>> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend time
> coding
> > > > these
> > > > >>> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow us to
> > > deploy
> > > > to
> > > > >>> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central. Once that
> is
> > > > done,
> > > > >>> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> br,
> > > > >>> juan pablo
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <
> glen.mazza@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product just
> > > > without
> > > > >>>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very Apache-esque
> > way
> > > of
> > > > >>>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an
> > indicator
> > > > of
> > > > >>>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If none
> of
> > us
> > > > >>>> right
> > > > >>>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope changes
> soon
> > > with
> > > > >>>> me),
> > > > >>>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Glen
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
> > > > >>>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> regards,
> > > > >>>>> Harry
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> +1
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
> > > > >>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> +1 too
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back
> > o.a.w.WikiException
> > > > >>>>>>> (deleted
> > > > >>>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two
> > > similar
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> changes,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release
> > 2.10.0
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the
> > > release
> > > > on
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> ASF's
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> br,
> > > > >>>>>>> juan pablo
> > > > >>>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>> escribió:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> +1
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems
> > > not a
> > > > >>>>>>>> lot
> > > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > > >>>>>>>> going on.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi Harry,
I had a lot of those while testing before r1551702, due to
o.a.w.tags.SearchResultIteratorInfo containing a String with an incorrect
classname. I'm currently re-trying to close the repo*, but I'll recheck on
that too to make sure everything is ok in order to proceed with voting
br,
juan pablo
* my current plan is to try 2 or 3 more times in the following hours, while
updating the "How to release" instructions at jspwiki.a.o. If tomorrow
morning the repo persists in not being closed, I'll upload the repo
artifacts somewhere at people.a.o to start the vote with some convenience
binaries. Later on we can mark that staging repo as closed + released, so
binaries effectively reach Central..
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Juan Pablo,
>
> first, thanks for all your efforts, I too appreciate !
>
> I have been testing the trunk, the only thing I could find until now is
> every 30 seconds a couple of these in the jspwiki.log:
>
> 2013-12-18 20:44:11,954 ERROR org.apache.wiki.WatchDog - Stack is empty!
> java.util.EmptyStackException
> at java.util.Stack.peek(Stack.java:102)
> at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.check(WatchDog.java:264)
> at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.access$300(WatchDog.java:52)
> at
> org.apache.wiki.WatchDog$WatchDogThread.backgroundTask(WatchDog.java:371)
> at
> org.apache.wiki.WikiBackgroundThread.run(WikiBackgroundThread.java:118)
>
> I'm investigating it currently...
>
> kind regards,
> Harry
>
>
>
>
> On 18 December 2013 02:00, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > quick note, as it's nearly 2.00am here; done almost all steps required to
> > publish all artifacts on a staging repo, which the vote is going to be
> run
> > against. Currently blocked by a nexus timeout on closing the staging
> repo,
> > progress can be followed at
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7105.
> > Once this is fixed (hopefully by tomorrow..), the vote for 2.10.0 release
> > will be called.
> >
> >
> > br,
> > juan pablo
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Juan Pablo,
> > >
> > > I will play around with the current trunk :-)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Siegfried Goeschl
> > >
> > >
> > > On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:03, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > just finished doing a big bunch of pending refactors prior to
> releasing
> > > > 2.10. We should be able to end up with all the artifacts on maven
> > central
> > > > too (once the vote+release passes), and use a staged repository[#1]
> to
> > > vote
> > > > instead of uploading to somewhere at people.a.o
> > > >
> > > > There are only a couple of points remaining: updating UPGRADING and
> > > > ReleaseNotes and ensuring all the prerequisites of [#1] are met.
> > > Hopefully,
> > > > they will be done between today and tomorrow. In the meantime, this
> is
> > a
> > > > call for testing current trunk, which is going to be most likely
> > 2.10.0.
> > > > I've tried to test all the recent commits (and will continue to do
> some
> > > > more testing), but for sure the more people looking into it before
> > voting
> > > > the release, the better.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > thanks + br,
> > > > juan pablo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [#1]:
> > > >
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi folks,
> > > >>
> > > >> IMHO it is important to get the release out
> > > >>
> > > >> * users are looking at project activity - there are many different
> > wikis
> > > >> out there ...
> > > >>
> > > >> * are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would appreciate? Better
> have
> > a
> > > >> small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest release 9
> months
> > > down
> > > >> the road (which might get delayed later on)
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >>
> > > >> Siegfried Goeschl
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk in any
> case,
> > > the
> > > >>> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility. If we
> release
> > > >>> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with latest
> > release,
> > > >>> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy those
> > classes
> > > >>> back
> > > >>> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some duplicated
> > > classes)
> > > >>> or
> > > >>> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to 2.9.2,
> > because I
> > > >>> was
> > > >>> having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest of the
> > > managers
> > > >>> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend time coding
> > > these
> > > >>> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow us to
> > deploy
> > > to
> > > >>> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central. Once that is
> > > done,
> > > >>> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> br,
> > > >>> juan pablo
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product just
> > > without
> > > >>>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very Apache-esque
> way
> > of
> > > >>>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an
> indicator
> > > of
> > > >>>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If none of
> us
> > > >>>> right
> > > >>>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope changes soon
> > with
> > > >>>> me),
> > > >>>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Glen
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
> > > >>>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> regards,
> > > >>>>> Harry
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> +1
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
> > > >>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> +1 too
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back
> o.a.w.WikiException
> > > >>>>>>> (deleted
> > > >>>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two
> > similar
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> changes,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release
> 2.10.0
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the
> > release
> > > on
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> ASF's
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> br,
> > > >>>>>>> juan pablo
> > > >>>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>> escribió:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> +1
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems
> > not a
> > > >>>>>>>> lot
> > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>> going on.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>.
Juan Pablo,
first, thanks for all your efforts, I too appreciate !
I have been testing the trunk, the only thing I could find until now is
every 30 seconds a couple of these in the jspwiki.log:
2013-12-18 20:44:11,954 ERROR org.apache.wiki.WatchDog - Stack is empty!
java.util.EmptyStackException
at java.util.Stack.peek(Stack.java:102)
at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.check(WatchDog.java:264)
at org.apache.wiki.WatchDog.access$300(WatchDog.java:52)
at
org.apache.wiki.WatchDog$WatchDogThread.backgroundTask(WatchDog.java:371)
at
org.apache.wiki.WikiBackgroundThread.run(WikiBackgroundThread.java:118)
I'm investigating it currently...
kind regards,
Harry
On 18 December 2013 02:00, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> quick note, as it's nearly 2.00am here; done almost all steps required to
> publish all artifacts on a staging repo, which the vote is going to be run
> against. Currently blocked by a nexus timeout on closing the staging repo,
> progress can be followed at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7105.
> Once this is fixed (hopefully by tomorrow..), the vote for 2.10.0 release
> will be called.
>
>
> br,
> juan pablo
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> siegfried.goeschl@it20one.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Juan Pablo,
> >
> > I will play around with the current trunk :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Siegfried Goeschl
> >
> >
> > On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:03, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> > juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > just finished doing a big bunch of pending refactors prior to releasing
> > > 2.10. We should be able to end up with all the artifacts on maven
> central
> > > too (once the vote+release passes), and use a staged repository[#1] to
> > vote
> > > instead of uploading to somewhere at people.a.o
> > >
> > > There are only a couple of points remaining: updating UPGRADING and
> > > ReleaseNotes and ensuring all the prerequisites of [#1] are met.
> > Hopefully,
> > > they will be done between today and tomorrow. In the meantime, this is
> a
> > > call for testing current trunk, which is going to be most likely
> 2.10.0.
> > > I've tried to test all the recent commits (and will continue to do some
> > > more testing), but for sure the more people looking into it before
> voting
> > > the release, the better.
> > >
> > >
> > > thanks + br,
> > > juan pablo
> > >
> > >
> > > [#1]:
> > >
> http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi folks,
> > >>
> > >> IMHO it is important to get the release out
> > >>
> > >> * users are looking at project activity - there are many different
> wikis
> > >> out there ...
> > >>
> > >> * are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would appreciate? Better have
> a
> > >> small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest release 9 months
> > down
> > >> the road (which might get delayed later on)
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >>
> > >> Siegfried Goeschl
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk in any case,
> > the
> > >>> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility. If we release
> > >>> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with latest
> release,
> > >>> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy those
> classes
> > >>> back
> > >>> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some duplicated
> > classes)
> > >>> or
> > >>> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to 2.9.2,
> because I
> > >>> was
> > >>> having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest of the
> > managers
> > >>> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend time coding
> > these
> > >>> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
> > >>>
> > >>> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow us to
> deploy
> > to
> > >>> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central. Once that is
> > done,
> > >>> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> br,
> > >>> juan pablo
> > >>>
> > >>> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product just
> > without
> > >>>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very Apache-esque way
> of
> > >>>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an indicator
> > of
> > >>>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If none of us
> > >>>> right
> > >>>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope changes soon
> with
> > >>>> me),
> > >>>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Glen
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
> > >>>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> regards,
> > >>>>> Harry
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> +1
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
> > >>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> +1 too
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back o.a.w.WikiException
> > >>>>>>> (deleted
> > >>>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two
> similar
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> changes,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release 2.10.0
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the
> release
> > on
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> ASF's
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> br,
> > >>>>>>> juan pablo
> > >>>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>> escribió:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems
> not a
> > >>>>>>>> lot
> > >>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>> going on.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> > >>>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Ichiro Furusato <ic...@gmail.com>.
Juan Pablo,
I'm sure your dedication is much appreciated by many. While I
don't have a vote any move to 2.10.0 would get a +1 from me.
In terms of the upcoming vote, I thought to add that as an added
incentive, once JSPWiki 2.10.0 stabilises, we hope to release a
WikiProvider implementation called JSONProvider in the new
year. It's currently been in testing for over a month now and while
there are a few issues remaining I believe there may be some
interest in the JSPWiki community.
Thanks very much!
Ichiro
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> quick note, as it's nearly 2.00am here; done almost all steps required to
> publish all artifacts on a staging repo, which the vote is going to be run
> against. Currently blocked by a nexus timeout on closing the staging repo,
> progress can be followed at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7105.
> Once this is fixed (hopefully by tomorrow..), the vote for 2.10.0 release
> will be called.
>
>
> br,
> juan pablo
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
quick note, as it's nearly 2.00am here; done almost all steps required to
publish all artifacts on a staging repo, which the vote is going to be run
against. Currently blocked by a nexus timeout on closing the staging repo,
progress can be followed at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7105.
Once this is fixed (hopefully by tomorrow..), the vote for 2.10.0 release
will be called.
br,
juan pablo
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
siegfried.goeschl@it20one.com> wrote:
> Hi Juan Pablo,
>
> I will play around with the current trunk :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Siegfried Goeschl
>
>
> On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:03, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > just finished doing a big bunch of pending refactors prior to releasing
> > 2.10. We should be able to end up with all the artifacts on maven central
> > too (once the vote+release passes), and use a staged repository[#1] to
> vote
> > instead of uploading to somewhere at people.a.o
> >
> > There are only a couple of points remaining: updating UPGRADING and
> > ReleaseNotes and ensuring all the prerequisites of [#1] are met.
> Hopefully,
> > they will be done between today and tomorrow. In the meantime, this is a
> > call for testing current trunk, which is going to be most likely 2.10.0.
> > I've tried to test all the recent commits (and will continue to do some
> > more testing), but for sure the more people looking into it before voting
> > the release, the better.
> >
> >
> > thanks + br,
> > juan pablo
> >
> >
> > [#1]:
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> > siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> IMHO it is important to get the release out
> >>
> >> * users are looking at project activity - there are many different wikis
> >> out there ...
> >>
> >> * are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would appreciate? Better have a
> >> small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest release 9 months
> down
> >> the road (which might get delayed later on)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Siegfried Goeschl
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk in any case,
> the
> >>> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility. If we release
> >>> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with latest release,
> >>> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy those classes
> >>> back
> >>> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some duplicated
> classes)
> >>> or
> >>> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to 2.9.2, because I
> >>> was
> >>> having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest of the
> managers
> >>> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend time coding
> these
> >>> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
> >>>
> >>> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow us to deploy
> to
> >>> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central. Once that is
> done,
> >>> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> br,
> >>> juan pablo
> >>>
> >>> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product just
> without
> >>>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very Apache-esque way of
> >>>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an indicator
> of
> >>>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If none of us
> >>>> right
> >>>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope changes soon with
> >>>> me),
> >>>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Glen
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
> >>>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> regards,
> >>>>> Harry
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
> >>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +1 too
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back o.a.w.WikiException
> >>>>>>> (deleted
> >>>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two similar
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> changes,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release 2.10.0
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the release
> on
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ASF's
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> br,
> >>>>>>> juan pablo
> >>>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> escribió:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a
> >>>>>>>> lot
> >>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>> going on.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> >>>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>
>
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Siegfried Goeschl <si...@it20one.com>.
Hi Juan Pablo,
I will play around with the current trunk :-)
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:03, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just finished doing a big bunch of pending refactors prior to releasing
> 2.10. We should be able to end up with all the artifacts on maven central
> too (once the vote+release passes), and use a staged repository[#1] to vote
> instead of uploading to somewhere at people.a.o
>
> There are only a couple of points remaining: updating UPGRADING and
> ReleaseNotes and ensuring all the prerequisites of [#1] are met. Hopefully,
> they will be done between today and tomorrow. In the meantime, this is a
> call for testing current trunk, which is going to be most likely 2.10.0.
> I've tried to test all the recent commits (and will continue to do some
> more testing), but for sure the more people looking into it before voting
> the release, the better.
>
>
> thanks + br,
> juan pablo
>
>
> [#1]:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
> siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> IMHO it is important to get the release out
>>
>> * users are looking at project activity - there are many different wikis
>> out there ...
>>
>> * are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would appreciate? Better have a
>> small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest release 9 months down
>> the road (which might get delayed later on)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Siegfried Goeschl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk in any case, the
>>> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility. If we release
>>> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with latest release,
>>> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy those classes
>>> back
>>> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some duplicated classes)
>>> or
>>> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to 2.9.2, because I
>>> was
>>> having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest of the managers
>>> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend time coding these
>>> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
>>>
>>> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow us to deploy to
>>> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central. Once that is done,
>>> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
>>>
>>>
>>> br,
>>> juan pablo
>>>
>>> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product just without
>>>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very Apache-esque way of
>>>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an indicator of
>>>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If none of us
>>>> right
>>>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope changes soon with
>>>> me),
>>>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
>>>>
>>>> Glen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
>>>>
>>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
>>>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Harry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
>>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 too
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back o.a.w.WikiException
>>>>>>> (deleted
>>>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two similar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release 2.10.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the release on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ASF's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> br,
>>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a
>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> going on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
>>>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
just finished doing a big bunch of pending refactors prior to releasing
2.10. We should be able to end up with all the artifacts on maven central
too (once the vote+release passes), and use a staged repository[#1] to vote
instead of uploading to somewhere at people.a.o
There are only a couple of points remaining: updating UPGRADING and
ReleaseNotes and ensuring all the prerequisites of [#1] are met. Hopefully,
they will be done between today and tomorrow. In the meantime, this is a
call for testing current trunk, which is going to be most likely 2.10.0.
I've tried to test all the recent commits (and will continue to do some
more testing), but for sure the more people looking into it before voting
the release, the better.
thanks + br,
juan pablo
[#1]:
http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Siegfried Goeschl <
siegfried.goeschl@it20one.at> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> IMHO it is important to get the release out
>
> * users are looking at project activity - there are many different wikis
> out there ...
>
> * are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would appreciate? Better have a
> small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest release 9 months down
> the road (which might get delayed later on)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Siegfried Goeschl
>
>
>
>
> On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk in any case, the
>> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility. If we release
>> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with latest release,
>> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy those classes
>> back
>> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some duplicated classes)
>> or
>> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to 2.9.2, because I
>> was
>> having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest of the managers
>> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend time coding these
>> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
>>
>> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow us to deploy to
>> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central. Once that is done,
>> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
>>
>>
>> br,
>> juan pablo
>>
>> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product just without
>>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very Apache-esque way of
>>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an indicator of
>>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If none of us
>>> right
>>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope changes soon with
>>> me),
>>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
>>>
>>> Glen
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
>>>
>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
>>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Harry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
>>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 too
>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back o.a.w.WikiException
>>>>>> (deleted
>>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two similar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>
>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release 2.10.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the release on
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ASF's
>>>>>
>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> br,
>>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a
>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> going on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
>>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Siegfried Goeschl <si...@it20one.at>.
Hi folks,
IMHO it is important to get the release out
* users are looking at project activity - there are many different wikis
out there ...
* are there bugfixes in 2.9.1 the users would appreciate? Better have a
small bugfix release now than the latest and greatest release 9 months
down the road (which might get delayed later on)
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
On 10.11.13 21:39, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk in any case, the
> version numbers were just to note binary compatibility. If we release
> current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with latest release,
> because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy those classes back
> to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some duplicated classes) or
> just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to 2.9.2, because I was
> having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest of the managers
> for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend time coding these
> last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
>
> As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow us to deploy to
> repository.apache.org, which is synced with central. Once that is done,
> I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
>
>
> br,
> juan pablo
>
> [#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product just without
>> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very Apache-esque way of
>> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an indicator of
>> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If none of us right
>> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope changes soon with me),
>> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
>>
>> Glen
>>
>>
>> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
>>
>>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
>>> The latter has more issues fixed...
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
>>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> +1 too
>>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back o.a.w.WikiException
>>>>> (deleted
>>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two similar
>>>>>
>>>> changes,
>>>>
>>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release 2.10.0
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the release on
>>>>>
>>>> ASF's
>>>>
>>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> br,
>>>>> juan pablo
>>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com> escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a lot
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> going on.
>>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
>>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
about 2.9 vs 2.10, I was having in mind releasing trunk in any case, the
version numbers were just to note binary compatibility. If we release
current trunk as it is, it isn't binary compatible with latest release,
because of 2.10.0-svn-8 and 2.10.0-svn-26. We could copy those classes back
to their original location and have 2.9.2 (with some duplicated classes) or
just release 2.10.0 as it is. I'm a little inclined to 2.9.2, because I was
having in mind further similar refactorings with the rest of the managers
for 2.10, but given the fact I've been unable to spend time coding these
last months, 2.10 would also be fine for me.
As an aside, there's an initial Infra setup [#1] to allow us to deploy to
repository.apache.org, which is synced with central. Once that is done,
I'll update the appropiate page on jspwiki.a.o
br,
juan pablo
[#1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6986
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product just without
> "incubator" in its version name, that's not a very Apache-esque way of
> doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an indicator of
> software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If none of us right
> now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope changes soon with me),
> busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
>
> Glen
>
>
> On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
>
>> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
>> The latter has more issues fixed...
>>
>> regards,
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
>>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> +1 too
>>>>
>>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back o.a.w.WikiException
>>>> (deleted
>>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two similar
>>>>
>>> changes,
>>>
>>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release 2.10.0
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the release on
>>>>
>>> ASF's
>>>
>>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> br,
>>>> juan pablo
>>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com> escribió:
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a lot
>>>>>>
>>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>> going on.
>>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
>>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
Yes, I don't see any need to release the same 2.9.1 product just without
"incubator" in its version name, that's not a very Apache-esque way of
doing things (the "incubator" in version release is not an indicator of
software quality, as Apache stresses over and over.) If none of us
right now have time to work on JSPWiki (a situation I hope changes soon
with me), busywork such as that isn't going to help the situation.
Glen
On 11/08/2013 01:02 PM, Harry Metske wrote:
> what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
> The latter has more issues fixed...
>
> regards,
> Harry
>
>
>
> On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>
>> +1
>> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> +1 too
>>>
>>> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back o.a.w.WikiException (deleted
>>> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two similar
>> changes,
>>> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release 2.10.0
>>>
>>> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the release on
>> ASF's
>>> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
>>>
>>> br,
>>> juan pablo
>>> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com> escribió:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a lot
>>> be
>>>>> going on.
>>>>> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
>>>>> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>.
what would be reasons to release 2.9.x versus 2.10.x ?
The latter has more issues fixed...
regards,
Harry
On 8 November 2013 08:41, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> +1
> Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
>
> > +1 too
> >
> > In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back o.a.w.WikiException (deleted
> > in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two similar
> changes,
> > have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release 2.10.0
> >
> > I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the release on
> ASF's
> > maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
> >
> > br,
> > juan pablo
> > El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com> escribió:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a lot
> > be
> > > > going on.
> > > > I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> > > > Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Juergen
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de>.
+1
Am 07.11.2013 19:33 schrieb "Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez" <
juanpablo.santos@gmail.com>:
> +1 too
>
> In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back o.a.w.WikiException (deleted
> in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two similar changes,
> have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release 2.10.0
>
> I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the release on ASF's
> maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
>
> br,
> juan pablo
> El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a lot
> be
> > > going on.
> > > I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> > > Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Juergen
> > >
> >
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
+1 too
In order to remain 2.9.x, we should get back o.a.w.WikiException (deleted
in favour of o.a.w.api.WikiException) and maybe one or two similar changes,
have to check svn to be sure.. Otherwise we should release 2.10.0
I'm thinking we could also use this release to publish the release on ASF's
maven repo, so we also end up on central. WDYT?
br,
juan pablo
El 05/11/2013 17:07, "Harry Metske" <ha...@gmail.com> escribió:
> +1
>
>
> On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
>
> > Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a lot be
> > going on.
> > I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> > Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Juergen
> >
>
Re: Kick out 2.9.1
Posted by Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 5 November 2013 16:50, Jürgen Weber <ju...@jwi.de> wrote:
> Currently the dev mailing list is a bit lonely, there seems not a lot be
> going on.
> I suggest that JSPWiki 2.9.1 come out from incubator.
> Actually 2.9.1 looks good. Why not release it?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often
>
> Cheers,
> Juergen
>