You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> on 2008/08/15 00:37:32 UTC
[jsieve] 0.2 RC2
http://people.apache.org/~rdonkin/0.2RC2/
please take a look and see if there's any more issues
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [jsieve] 0.2 RC2
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <bf...@brainlounge.de>.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~rdonkin/0.2RC2/
>>>
>>> please take a look and see if there's any more issues
>>
>> apache-jsieve-0.2RC2.jar contains the test classes. do we want this?
>> As a naive user, I'd expect the jar file to only contain what I need
>> for production. (Not a showstopper for me, since it hurts nobody.)
>
> I don't see Junit tests in the apache-jsieve-0.2RC2.jar file. Maybe
> you've been fooled by the org.apache.jsieve.tests package.
>
> This is not a Junit test package, but a JSieve Tests package. Tests are
> a domain aspect of Sieve.
>
> They include all of the tests you can run against an input message. You
> can think of them as Rules or Matchers, but Sieve RFC name them tests,
> so jSieve package follow the same naming convention.
oh, interesting! didn't know that.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3028.txt
> 2.5. Tests
> 2.5.1. Test Lists
>
>> I don't know why, but the pom contains some <exclusion> sections under
>> <dependencies>/<dependency>/<exclusions>
>> which seem to me like they are not neccessary. (Could it be that maven
>> is just there to make me ask stupid questions? ;-))
>
> If you refer to the commons-logging exclusions they are there because
> commons-logging 1.1 have that as dependencies so they was imported by
> maven. commons-logging 1.1.1 fixed this and declared them as "optional",
> so the exclusions should not be necessary any more, but when we updated
> the commmons-logging version we didn't check for this.
>
> So, I guess they could be removed now, but this have to be tested.
ok, no problem, just noting.
thanks for explaining!,
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [jsieve] 0.2 RC2
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> http://people.apache.org/~rdonkin/0.2RC2/
>>
>> please take a look and see if there's any more issues
>
> apache-jsieve-0.2RC2.jar contains the test classes. do we want this?
> As a naive user, I'd expect the jar file to only contain what I need for
> production. (Not a showstopper for me, since it hurts nobody.)
I don't see Junit tests in the apache-jsieve-0.2RC2.jar file. Maybe
you've been fooled by the org.apache.jsieve.tests package.
This is not a Junit test package, but a JSieve Tests package. Tests are
a domain aspect of Sieve.
They include all of the tests you can run against an input message. You
can think of them as Rules or Matchers, but Sieve RFC name them tests,
so jSieve package follow the same naming convention.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3028.txt
2.5. Tests
2.5.1. Test Lists
> I don't know why, but the pom contains some <exclusion> sections under
> <dependencies>/<dependency>/<exclusions>
> which seem to me like they are not neccessary. (Could it be that maven
> is just there to make me ask stupid questions? ;-))
If you refer to the commons-logging exclusions they are there because
commons-logging 1.1 have that as dependencies so they was imported by
maven. commons-logging 1.1.1 fixed this and declared them as "optional",
so the exclusions should not be necessary any more, but when we updated
the commmons-logging version we didn't check for this.
So, I guess they could be removed now, but this have to be tested.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [jsieve] 0.2 RC2
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~rdonkin/0.2RC2/
>>>
>>> please take a look and see if there's any more issues
>>
>
> NOTICE.base and LICENSE.apache to me seem like left-over artifacts
> because the *.txt files are also right there.
This is because of tricky policy requirement from ASF.
NOTICE.base is different from NOTICE.txt and LICENSE.apache is different
from LICENSE.txt.
The basic difference is that NOTICE.txt and LICENSE.txt are intended to
declare the credits and licenses for the full src tree in svn and in the
source release (and the binary release if it includes the same
dependencies), while the NOTICE.base and LICENSE.apache contains the
basic NOTICE/LICENSE tuple for the jars distributions that do not ship
any dependency and do not require any added credit/license.
ASF suggest us to not use only one big NOTICE/LICENSE including the
largest set of dependencies
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-27).
My opinion is that this is a complex requirement that make the releasing
process/review even more difficult, but as long as we have only 2 of
them (complete, and jar only) I can live with it. I'll fight any more
strict policy, but here is not the place for this. Join legal-discuss
for this.
You can see NOTICE.txt includes credits for bnd and junit so it is
needed only in the src.zip package because we don't have them in the
bin.zip and the jars we distribute.
Also LICENSE.txt includes the full junit license, too, while
LICENSE.apache is used in packages not including junit (all but src.zip).
In mime4j we use the same technique but there we don't have
LICENSE.apache and NOTICE.base because we use the
maven-remote-resources-plugin to include LICENSE and NOTICE in our
artifacts with no included dependencies.
In current jsieve release we do the same because Robert decided to use
the m2 build for this (so you see that NOTICE and LICENSE used in jars
are not the LICENSE.aapche and NOTICE.base, but are similar files
generated by maven), but they are still there because they are used by
the ant build.
As long as we document what is the official build too (the one we use to
make releases) we can even remove this NOTICE/LICENSE handling in the
unofficial build tool, but as long as we have mantainers for both builds
there is no need to decide this.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [jsieve] 0.2 RC2
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <bf...@brainlounge.de>.
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> http://people.apache.org/~rdonkin/0.2RC2/
>>
>> please take a look and see if there's any more issues
>
NOTICE.base and LICENSE.apache to me seem like left-over artifacts
because the *.txt files are also right there.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [jsieve] 0.2 RC2
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <bf...@brainlounge.de>.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> http://people.apache.org/~rdonkin/0.2RC2/
>
> please take a look and see if there's any more issues
apache-jsieve-0.2RC2.jar contains the test classes. do we want this?
As a naive user, I'd expect the jar file to only contain what I need for
production. (Not a showstopper for me, since it hurts nobody.)
I don't know why, but the pom contains some <exclusion> sections under
<dependencies>/<dependency>/<exclusions>
which seem to me like they are not neccessary. (Could it be that maven
is just there to make me ask stupid questions? ;-))
Summary: +1 to start a vote. :-)
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [jsieve] 0.2 RC2
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> http://people.apache.org/~rdonkin/0.2RC2/
>
> please take a look and see if there's any more issues
Great! works for me.
I loaded a +1 to the preemptive cache :-)
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [jsieve] 0.2 RC2
Posted by Norman Maurer <no...@apache.org>.
Am Donnerstag, den 14.08.2008, 23:37 +0100 schrieb Robert Burrell
Donkin:
> http://people.apache.org/~rdonkin/0.2RC2/
>
> please take a look and see if there's any more issues
>
> - robert
Same to you ....
Just noticed that your gpg key is not listed
in /www/www.apache.org/dist/james/KEYS . Please add it to the file so
other users can verify that it is signed by someone which is
"trustable".
Cheers,
Norman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org