You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> on 2016/05/02 06:28:40 UTC
[VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
All,
Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
Maven repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
Artifacts:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
Staged site:
http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
All reports are available in the provided staged Maven site.
JIRA-generated release notes are available in the dist.a.o "Artifacts"
repository. Unit tests pass and the RC was built util JDK6.
The current code is available in branches/VFS-2.1 at r1741921. This is
what will be copied to tags upon successful passing of this vote.
This vote will be open for 72-hours, 2016/05/05 0500 UTC.
[ ] +1 Release these artifacts as version 2.1
[ ] 0 OK, but...
[ ] -1 I oppose these artifacts as version 2.1 because..
- Josh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
(So sorry, fingers sent too quick)
commons-vfs-2.1-bin.tar.gz:
MD5 fdaad280f3d3c592df048a58bfa8debd
SHA1 edfa8ac8c31e2e4b88898ac2418f9e7a7fe34324
commons-vfs-2.1-bin.zip:
MD5 951448d632ff37363c4bd0dcad3a887e
SHA1 2fd9262d349f6d62eb34912a7d56d406b7655568
My GPG key is 4677D66C
Josh Elser wrote:
> Forgot to include xsum/sig info:
>
> commons-vfs-2.1-src.tar.gz:
> MD5 f768cf5f2d00cfa58b70d221054ca1c9
> SHA1 d5a53ecf575e961b2e6b472e8bf5b013b33bfa78
>
> commons-vfs-2.1-src.zip:
> MD5 2eb6a10883b77ce137a391a7dd341120
> SHA1 f831eb7cb62df295ef8b1a090e209550c6ea5c35
>
> Josh Elser wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
>>
>> Maven repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
>>
>> Artifacts:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
>>
>> Staged site:
>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
>>
>> All reports are available in the provided staged Maven site.
>> JIRA-generated release notes are available in the dist.a.o "Artifacts"
>> repository. Unit tests pass and the RC was built util JDK6.
>>
>> The current code is available in branches/VFS-2.1 at r1741921. This is
>> what will be copied to tags upon successful passing of this vote.
>>
>> This vote will be open for 72-hours, 2016/05/05 0500 UTC.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts as version 2.1
>> [ ] 0 OK, but...
>> [ ] -1 I oppose these artifacts as version 2.1 because..
>>
>> - Josh
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
Forgot to include xsum/sig info:
commons-vfs-2.1-src.tar.gz:
MD5 f768cf5f2d00cfa58b70d221054ca1c9
SHA1 d5a53ecf575e961b2e6b472e8bf5b013b33bfa78
commons-vfs-2.1-src.zip:
MD5 2eb6a10883b77ce137a391a7dd341120
SHA1 f831eb7cb62df295ef8b1a090e209550c6ea5c35
Josh Elser wrote:
> All,
>
> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
>
> Maven repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
>
> Artifacts:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
>
> Staged site:
> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
>
> All reports are available in the provided staged Maven site.
> JIRA-generated release notes are available in the dist.a.o "Artifacts"
> repository. Unit tests pass and the RC was built util JDK6.
>
> The current code is available in branches/VFS-2.1 at r1741921. This is
> what will be copied to tags upon successful passing of this vote.
>
> This vote will be open for 72-hours, 2016/05/05 0500 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts as version 2.1
> [ ] 0 OK, but...
> [ ] -1 I oppose these artifacts as version 2.1 because..
>
> - Josh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
Josh Elser wrote:
> Sebb wrote:
>>> > Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1
>>> (rc0).
>>> >
>>> > Maven repository:
>>> >
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
>>
>> The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
>> URL is transitory.
>> The hashes allow one to tie the released files back to the vote thread.
>
> Ugh, this is what happens when I try to finish this up late at night :)
Also, it's worth nothing that your email template on the website
(https://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html) does not include
instructions for this which is what I'll blame for forgetting to do this
on my own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
Sebb wrote:
>> > Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
>> >
>> > Maven repository:
>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
>
> The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
> URL is transitory.
> The hashes allow one to tie the released files back to the vote thread.
Ugh, this is what happens when I try to finish this up late at night :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, I do not think we want to release the sandbox because it will drag in
jar(s) that have a license that is not ASL 2 friendly IIRC.
Gary
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:36 PM, <ec...@zusammenkunft.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Agree, the sandbox profile should be in the site build enabled, but we
> cannot distribute the binaries as official release since it has
> dependencies which are not Apache approved (and potentially unfinished
> suff).
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
> --
> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>
> To: Commons Developers List <de...@commons.apache.org>
> Sent: Di., 03 Mai 2016 2:33
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
>
> I had just tried to make sure it was included in the build because I
> assumed that it was meant to be released :)
>
> It's becoming apparent that was inaccurate.
>
> Ralph Goers wrote:
> > As I recall 2.0 did not really include sandbox as part of the release
> because we didn’t want to officially support the sandbox components. They
> might have been included in the source distribution though. But these
> emails make it sound like it is exactly the opposite of what I would have
> expected.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >> On May 2, 2016, at 6:35 AM, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> sebb wrote:
> >>> The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
> >>> users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
> >>> should not be the primary download page.
> >>>
> >>> Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
> >>> release artifacts:
> >>> commons-vfs-2.1-bin
> >>> and
> >>> commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
> >>>
> >>> etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of
> them?
> >> I have no idea. This is just what your build process did...
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by ec...@zusammenkunft.net.
Hello,
Agree, the sandbox profile should be in the site build enabled, but we cannot distribute the binaries as official release since it has dependencies which are not Apache approved (and potentially unfinished suff).
Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>
To: Commons Developers List <de...@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Di., 03 Mai 2016 2:33
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
I had just tried to make sure it was included in the build because I
assumed that it was meant to be released :)
It's becoming apparent that was inaccurate.
Ralph Goers wrote:
> As I recall 2.0 did not really include sandbox as part of the release because we didn’t want to officially support the sandbox components. They might have been included in the source distribution though. But these emails make it sound like it is exactly the opposite of what I would have expected.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On May 2, 2016, at 6:35 AM, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> sebb wrote:
>>> The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
>>> users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
>>> should not be the primary download page.
>>>
>>> Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
>>> release artifacts:
>>> commons-vfs-2.1-bin
>>> and
>>> commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of them?
>> I have no idea. This is just what your build process did...
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
I had just tried to make sure it was included in the build because I
assumed that it was meant to be released :)
It's becoming apparent that was inaccurate.
Ralph Goers wrote:
> As I recall 2.0 did not really include sandbox as part of the release because we didn\u2019t want to officially support the sandbox components. They might have been included in the source distribution though. But these emails make it sound like it is exactly the opposite of what I would have expected.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On May 2, 2016, at 6:35 AM, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> sebb wrote:
>>> The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
>>> users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
>>> should not be the primary download page.
>>>
>>> Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
>>> release artifacts:
>>> commons-vfs-2.1-bin
>>> and
>>> commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of them?
>> I have no idea. This is just what your build process did...
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
As I recall 2.0 did not really include sandbox as part of the release because we didn’t want to officially support the sandbox components. They might have been included in the source distribution though. But these emails make it sound like it is exactly the opposite of what I would have expected.
Ralph
> On May 2, 2016, at 6:35 AM, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> sebb wrote:
>> The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
>> users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
>> should not be the primary download page.
>>
>> Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
>> release artifacts:
>> commons-vfs-2.1-bin
>> and
>> commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
>>
>> etc.
>>
>>
>> Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of them?
>
> I have no idea. This is just what your build process did...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
sebb wrote:
> The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
> users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
> should not be the primary download page.
>
> Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
> release artifacts:
> commons-vfs-2.1-bin
> and
> commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
>
> etc.
>
>
> Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of them?
I have no idea. This is just what your build process did...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
sebb wrote:
>> > mvn site:stage is used expressly for this purpose. Maven has no problems
>> > with properly constructed multi-module projects -- it's a fallacy that Maven
>> > cannot handle multi-module projects well.
>
> [Since Maven knows it is a multi-module project it should not need a
> different command.
> Or at least it should warn the user to start again]
>
> I guess VFS is not properly constructed then.
>
> I just tried mvn:site having cleared out the local repo of VFS stuff and I get:
>
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project commons-vfs2-examples: Could
> not resolve dependencies for project
> org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-examples:jar:2.1: Could not find
> artifact org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2:jar:2.1 in central
> (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) -> [Help 1]
>
> Whereas I just tried 'mvn site' with Commons Net3.5 and it worked fine.
> It downloaded Net3.4 for Clirr, but otherwise did not need any Net jars.
That doesn't entirely surprise me, but it's definitely possible to work
around. Short-term workaround would be (probably) `mvn package site`. I
don't think site would bind to the package phase by default.
>> > However, fixing it is a separate topic than this RC voting:)
>
> Fixing what?
>
Fixing any oddness in the maven site for this project. The site can be
built -- it's not a blocker for the release (at least no one has said it
needs to be yet). Thus, we should have further discussion in something
that isn't tagged as a [VOTE], IMO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 3 May 2016 at 18:25, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Ideally the duplicate archives should be dropped, but that is not a
>>>> >> blocker, just a nuisance when reviewing.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Yeah, I'll try to figure out what's going on with that when I roll
>>> > rc1. I'm
>>> > not sure since it's not pulling directly from the apache.pom (I'm not
>>> > sure
>>> > what all the commons parent pom is doing yet).
>>
>>
>> It would be a lot easier if VFS were a single module project.
>> Maven does not handle multi-module projects well.
>> For example I just tried "mvn site" in the RC directory and it
>> complained about not finding various bits of VFS in the repo.
>> This does not happen with single module projects.
>
>
> mvn site:stage is used expressly for this purpose. Maven has no problems
> with properly constructed multi-module projects -- it's a fallacy that Maven
> cannot handle multi-module projects well.
[Since Maven knows it is a multi-module project it should not need a
different command.
Or at least it should warn the user to start again]
I guess VFS is not properly constructed then.
I just tried mvn:site having cleared out the local repo of VFS stuff and I get:
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project commons-vfs2-examples: Could
not resolve dependencies for project
org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-examples:jar:2.1: Could not find
artifact org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2:jar:2.1 in central
(https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) -> [Help 1]
Whereas I just tried 'mvn site' with Commons Net 3.5 and it worked fine.
It downloaded Net 3.4 for Clirr, but otherwise did not need any Net jars.
> However, fixing it is a separate topic than this RC voting :)
Fixing what?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
sebb wrote:
>>> >> Ideally the duplicate archives should be dropped, but that is not a
>>> >> blocker, just a nuisance when reviewing.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah, I'll try to figure out what's going on with that when I roll rc1. I'm
>> > not sure since it's not pulling directly from the apache.pom (I'm not sure
>> > what all the commons parent pom is doing yet).
>
> It would be a lot easier if VFS were a single module project.
> Maven does not handle multi-module projects well.
> For example I just tried "mvn site" in the RC directory and it
> complained about not finding various bits of VFS in the repo.
> This does not happen with single module projects.
mvn site:stage is used expressly for this purpose. Maven has no problems
with properly constructed multi-module projects -- it's a fallacy that
Maven cannot handle multi-module projects well.
However, fixing it is a separate topic than this RC voting :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 3 May 2016 at 18:08, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> > Sebb -- would addressing these points in the release notes cause you
>>> > to
>>> > change your -1 to a +1? I'd like to make all the changes I can ASAP
>>> > and roll
>>> > the next RC. Because I haven't said it explicitly -- thanks for taking
>>> > the
>>> > time to give all of the feedback that you have already.
>>
>>
>> I think we should drop sandbox from trunk entirely; that will resolve
>> the issues.
>
>
> I agree with you completely.
>
>> Ideally the duplicate archives should be dropped, but that is not a
>> blocker, just a nuisance when reviewing.
>
>
> Yeah, I'll try to figure out what's going on with that when I roll rc1. I'm
> not sure since it's not pulling directly from the apache.pom (I'm not sure
> what all the commons parent pom is doing yet).
It would be a lot easier if VFS were a single module project.
Maven does not handle multi-module projects well.
For example I just tried "mvn site" in the RC directory and it
complained about not finding various bits of VFS in the repo.
This does not happen with single module projects.
Once sandbox is removed, there's only core and examples; these could
be merged and the jars managed as NET does.
But that's maybe too much upheaval for now.
And sandbox could even be developed as a separate project (rather than
module) depending on VFS (which it does anyway).
>> I'm not yet convinced about the Clirr errors.
>> I tried running the previous tests jar against the current code.
>> There were some errors, but these may be due to code fixes. I've not
>> had time to investigate fully.
>> But in any case, the description in changes.xml needs to explain why
>> the Clirr errors are not a concern.
>
>
> IIRC, the errors that I saw were about new methods or fields which should be
> fine for binary compatibility (sans the aforementioned Tar* classes). Given
> what you said earlier and my personal understanding, this should not affect
> binary compat.
>
> I have it on my list to update the necessary docs with the "why" before rc1.
>
> LMK if/when you decide for certain about the API additions and whether or
> not they're OK. Thanks.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
sebb wrote:
>> > Sebb -- would addressing these points in the release notes cause you to
>> > change your -1 to a +1? I'd like to make all the changes I can ASAP and roll
>> > the next RC. Because I haven't said it explicitly -- thanks for taking the
>> > time to give all of the feedback that you have already.
>
> I think we should drop sandbox from trunk entirely; that will resolve
> the issues.
I agree with you completely.
> Ideally the duplicate archives should be dropped, but that is not a
> blocker, just a nuisance when reviewing.
Yeah, I'll try to figure out what's going on with that when I roll rc1.
I'm not sure since it's not pulling directly from the apache.pom (I'm
not sure what all the commons parent pom is doing yet).
> I'm not yet convinced about the Clirr errors.
> I tried running the previous tests jar against the current code.
> There were some errors, but these may be due to code fixes. I've not
> had time to investigate fully.
> But in any case, the description in changes.xml needs to explain why
> the Clirr errors are not a concern.
IIRC, the errors that I saw were about new methods or fields which
should be fine for binary compatibility (sans the aforementioned Tar*
classes). Given what you said earlier and my personal understanding,
this should not affect binary compat.
I have it on my list to update the necessary docs with the "why" before rc1.
LMK if/when you decide for certain about the API additions and whether
or not they're OK. Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 3 May 2016 at 01:37, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> Josh Elser wrote:
>>
>> sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility.
>>>> >
>>>> > I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not
>>>> worth
>>>> > changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are
>>>> not
>>>> > acceptable, please start a discussion about this so you can come to
>>>> > consensus on how the changes should be addressed.
>>>
>>>
>>> The release vote mail really needs to include all the release-specific
>>> information that the reviewer needs to do the review.
>>>
>>> If there are caveats etc relating to the Clirr report these need to be
>>> included in the vote mail.
>>> Both to make it easier for the reviewers, and for the historical
>>> record to show that these items were considered.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, this was not made clear to me. Thank you for letting me know. I'd
>> encourage you to update your project's website. For other projects, I
>> assume that those voting would have the context from previous
>> discussions, but acknowledge that this is not how commons operates.
>
>
> Sebb -- would addressing these points in the release notes cause you to
> change your -1 to a +1? I'd like to make all the changes I can ASAP and roll
> the next RC. Because I haven't said it explicitly -- thanks for taking the
> time to give all of the feedback that you have already.
I think we should drop sandbox from trunk entirely; that will resolve
the issues.
Ideally the duplicate archives should be dropped, but that is not a
blocker, just a nuisance when reviewing.
I'm not yet convinced about the Clirr errors.
I tried running the previous tests jar against the current code.
There were some errors, but these may be due to code fixes. I've not
had time to investigate fully.
But in any case, the description in changes.xml needs to explain why
the Clirr errors are not a concern.
My other concerns were about missing content in the e-mail, which can
obviously be redone without needing to rebuild.
> Everyone else -- even though Sebb voted -1 on rc0, I would greatly
> appreciate if everyone could still look through rc0 and give any more
> feedback which would keep you from a +1.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
Josh Elser wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>> On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility.
>>> >
>>> > I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not
>>> worth
>>> > changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are
>>> not
>>> > acceptable, please start a discussion about this so you can come to
>>> > consensus on how the changes should be addressed.
>>
>> The release vote mail really needs to include all the release-specific
>> information that the reviewer needs to do the review.
>>
>> If there are caveats etc relating to the Clirr report these need to be
>> included in the vote mail.
>> Both to make it easier for the reviewers, and for the historical
>> record to show that these items were considered.
>>
>
> Ok, this was not made clear to me. Thank you for letting me know. I'd
> encourage you to update your project's website. For other projects, I
> assume that those voting would have the context from previous
> discussions, but acknowledge that this is not how commons operates.
Sebb -- would addressing these points in the release notes cause you to
change your -1 to a +1? I'd like to make all the changes I can ASAP and
roll the next RC. Because I haven't said it explicitly -- thanks for
taking the time to give all of the feedback that you have already.
Everyone else -- even though Sebb voted -1 on rc0, I would greatly
appreciate if everyone could still look through rc0 and give any more
feedback which would keep you from a +1.
Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
sebb wrote:
> On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility.
>> >
>> > I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not worth
>> > changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are not
>> > acceptable, please start a discussion about this so you can come to
>> > consensus on how the changes should be addressed.
>
> The release vote mail really needs to include all the release-specific
> information that the reviewer needs to do the review.
>
> If there are caveats etc relating to the Clirr report these need to be
> included in the vote mail.
> Both to make it easier for the reviewers, and for the historical
> record to show that these items were considered.
>
Ok, this was not made clear to me. Thank you for letting me know. I'd
encourage you to update your project's website. For other projects, I
assume that those voting would have the context from previous
discussions, but acknowledge that this is not how commons operates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility.
>
> I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not worth
> changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are not
> acceptable, please start a discussion about this so you can come to
> consensus on how the changes should be addressed.
The release vote mail really needs to include all the release-specific
information that the reviewer needs to do the review.
If there are caveats etc relating to the Clirr report these need to be
included in the vote mail.
Both to make it easier for the reviewers, and for the historical
record to show that these items were considered.
>
> Josh Elser wrote:
>>
>> Sebb -- did you actually read the changes?
>>
>> You should note that those are all method additions which we already
>> decided were allowed
>>
>> sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> I have now found the Clirr Report at
>>>
>>>
>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html
>>>
>>>
>>> There are still some breaking changes that affect BC as far as I can
>>> tell, so that means I need to vote
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2016 at 11:31, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Also the sandbox tree is missing from the source archives.
>>>> Yet there are sandbox jars in Nexus.
>>>> We cannot publish source to Maven that is not also in the source
>>>> artifacts.
>>>>
>>>> If the sandbox code is not intended to be released, it should be moved
>>>> from trunk.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2 May 2016 at 11:16, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Also please include a link to the KEYS file, i.e.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the standard download page is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/download_vfs.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that should be in the site menu.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
>>>>> users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
>>>>> should not be the primary download page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
>>>>> release artifacts:
>>>>> commons-vfs-2.1-bin
>>>>> and
>>>>> commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
>>>>>
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of
>>>>> them?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2 May 2016 at 10:40, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 May 2016 at 05:28, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1
>>>>>>> (rc0).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maven repository:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
>>>>>> URL is transitory.
>>>>>> The hashes allow one to tie the released files back to the vote
>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They can be copied from the Nexus mail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Artifacts:
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise here we include the revision id of the URL:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Staged site:
>>>>>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no Clirr report that I could find.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also the download page links to trunk rather than the specific tag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All reports are available in the provided staged Maven site.
>>>>>>> JIRA-generated
>>>>>>> release notes are available in the dist.a.o "Artifacts"
>>>>>>> repository. Unit
>>>>>>> tests pass and the RC was built util JDK6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E-mail should really have URL to make it easy for reviewers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current code is available in branches/VFS-2.1 at r1741921.
>>>>>>> This is what
>>>>>>> will be copied to tags upon successful passing of this vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Full URLs in e-mails please.
>>>>>> Also it should be a TAG not a branch, as it should be kept if the vote
>>>>>> is successful
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This vote will be open for 72-hours, 2016/05/05 0500 UTC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts as version 2.1
>>>>>>> [ ] 0 OK, but...
>>>>>>> [X] -1 I oppose these artifacts as version 2.1 because..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No need necessarily to rebuild everything as most of the concerns
>>>>>> relate to the vote e-mail and the site.
>>>>>> e.g. you can rename the branch as a tag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <jo...@gmail.com>.
sebb wrote:
> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
> mentions Release Notes but the link points to
>
> https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/RELEASE_NOTES.txt
>
> which of course is for2.0.
>
> It would be helpful to use the current release notes on the site.
Ok, I'll have to figure out how that gets wired up. I have no idea if
that's dynamic or static.
> The new RN at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
> don't mention any of the Clirr issues.
Ok, I will update that then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
mentions Release Notes but the link points to
https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/RELEASE_NOTES.txt
which of course is for 2.0.
It would be helpful to use the current release notes on the site.
The new RN at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
don't mention any of the Clirr issues.
On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility.
>
> I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not worth
> changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are not
> acceptable, please start a discussion about this so you can come to
> consensus on how the changes should be addressed.
>
>
> Josh Elser wrote:
>>
>> Sebb -- did you actually read the changes?
>>
>> You should note that those are all method additions which we already
>> decided were allowed
>>
>> sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> I have now found the Clirr Report at
>>>
>>>
>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html
>>>
>>>
>>> There are still some breaking changes that affect BC as far as I can
>>> tell, so that means I need to vote
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2016 at 11:31, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Also the sandbox tree is missing from the source archives.
>>>> Yet there are sandbox jars in Nexus.
>>>> We cannot publish source to Maven that is not also in the source
>>>> artifacts.
>>>>
>>>> If the sandbox code is not intended to be released, it should be moved
>>>> from trunk.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2 May 2016 at 11:16, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Also please include a link to the KEYS file, i.e.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the standard download page is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/download_vfs.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that should be in the site menu.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
>>>>> users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
>>>>> should not be the primary download page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
>>>>> release artifacts:
>>>>> commons-vfs-2.1-bin
>>>>> and
>>>>> commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
>>>>>
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of
>>>>> them?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2 May 2016 at 10:40, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 May 2016 at 05:28, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1
>>>>>>> (rc0).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maven repository:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
>>>>>> URL is transitory.
>>>>>> The hashes allow one to tie the released files back to the vote
>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They can be copied from the Nexus mail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Artifacts:
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise here we include the revision id of the URL:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Staged site:
>>>>>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no Clirr report that I could find.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also the download page links to trunk rather than the specific tag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All reports are available in the provided staged Maven site.
>>>>>>> JIRA-generated
>>>>>>> release notes are available in the dist.a.o "Artifacts"
>>>>>>> repository. Unit
>>>>>>> tests pass and the RC was built util JDK6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> E-mail should really have URL to make it easy for reviewers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current code is available in branches/VFS-2.1 at r1741921.
>>>>>>> This is what
>>>>>>> will be copied to tags upon successful passing of this vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Full URLs in e-mails please.
>>>>>> Also it should be a TAG not a branch, as it should be kept if the vote
>>>>>> is successful
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This vote will be open for 72-hours, 2016/05/05 0500 UTC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts as version 2.1
>>>>>>> [ ] 0 OK, but...
>>>>>>> [X] -1 I oppose these artifacts as version 2.1 because..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No need necessarily to rebuild everything as most of the concerns
>>>>>> relate to the vote e-mail and the site.
>>>>>> e.g. you can rename the branch as a tag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility.
I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not worth
changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are not
acceptable, please start a discussion about this so you can come to
consensus on how the changes should be addressed.
Josh Elser wrote:
> Sebb -- did you actually read the changes?
>
> You should note that those are all method additions which we already
> decided were allowed
>
> sebb wrote:
>> I have now found the Clirr Report at
>>
>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html
>>
>>
>> There are still some breaking changes that affect BC as far as I can
>> tell, so that means I need to vote
>>
>> -1
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 at 11:31, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Also the sandbox tree is missing from the source archives.
>>> Yet there are sandbox jars in Nexus.
>>> We cannot publish source to Maven that is not also in the source
>>> artifacts.
>>>
>>> If the sandbox code is not intended to be released, it should be moved
>>> from trunk.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2016 at 11:16, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Also please include a link to the KEYS file, i.e.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>>>
>>>> Note that the standard download page is
>>>>
>>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/download_vfs.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that should be in the site menu.
>>>>
>>>> The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
>>>> users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
>>>> should not be the primary download page.
>>>>
>>>> Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
>>>> release artifacts:
>>>> commons-vfs-2.1-bin
>>>> and
>>>> commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
>>>>
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of
>>>> them?
>>>>
>>>> On 2 May 2016 at 10:40, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2 May 2016 at 05:28, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1
>>>>>> (rc0).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maven repository:
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
>>>>>>
>>>>> The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
>>>>> URL is transitory.
>>>>> The hashes allow one to tie the released files back to the vote
>>>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> They can be copied from the Nexus mail.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Artifacts:
>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
>>>>> Likewise here we include the revision id of the URL:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Staged site:
>>>>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
>>>>> There's no Clirr report that I could find.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also the download page links to trunk rather than the specific tag.
>>>>>
>>>>>> All reports are available in the provided staged Maven site.
>>>>>> JIRA-generated
>>>>>> release notes are available in the dist.a.o "Artifacts"
>>>>>> repository. Unit
>>>>>> tests pass and the RC was built util JDK6.
>>>>> E-mail should really have URL to make it easy for reviewers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The current code is available in branches/VFS-2.1 at r1741921.
>>>>>> This is what
>>>>>> will be copied to tags upon successful passing of this vote.
>>>>> Full URLs in e-mails please.
>>>>> Also it should be a TAG not a branch, as it should be kept if the vote
>>>>> is successful
>>>>>
>>>>>> This vote will be open for 72-hours, 2016/05/05 0500 UTC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts as version 2.1
>>>>>> [ ] 0 OK, but...
>>>>>> [X] -1 I oppose these artifacts as version 2.1 because..
>>>>> As above.
>>>>>
>>>>> No need necessarily to rebuild everything as most of the concerns
>>>>> relate to the vote e-mail and the site.
>>>>> e.g. you can rename the branch as a tag.
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
Sebb -- did you actually read the changes?
You should note that those are all method additions which we already
decided were allowed
sebb wrote:
> I have now found the Clirr Report at
>
> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html
>
> There are still some breaking changes that affect BC as far as I can
> tell, so that means I need to vote
>
> -1
>
>
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 11:31, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also the sandbox tree is missing from the source archives.
>> Yet there are sandbox jars in Nexus.
>> We cannot publish source to Maven that is not also in the source artifacts.
>>
>> If the sandbox code is not intended to be released, it should be moved
>> from trunk.
>>
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 at 11:16, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Also please include a link to the KEYS file, i.e.
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>>
>>> Note that the standard download page is
>>>
>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/download_vfs.html
>>>
>>> I think that should be in the site menu.
>>>
>>> The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
>>> users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
>>> should not be the primary download page.
>>>
>>> Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
>>> release artifacts:
>>> commons-vfs-2.1-bin
>>> and
>>> commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of them?
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2016 at 10:40, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2 May 2016 at 05:28, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
>>>>>
>>>>> Maven repository:
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
>>>> The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
>>>> URL is transitory.
>>>> The hashes allow one to tie the released files back to the vote thread.
>>>>
>>>> They can be copied from the Nexus mail.
>>>>
>>>>> Artifacts:
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
>>>> Likewise here we include the revision id of the URL:
>>>>
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Staged site:
>>>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
>>>> There's no Clirr report that I could find.
>>>>
>>>> Also the download page links to trunk rather than the specific tag.
>>>>
>>>>> All reports are available in the provided staged Maven site. JIRA-generated
>>>>> release notes are available in the dist.a.o "Artifacts" repository. Unit
>>>>> tests pass and the RC was built util JDK6.
>>>> E-mail should really have URL to make it easy for reviewers.
>>>>
>>>>> The current code is available in branches/VFS-2.1 at r1741921. This is what
>>>>> will be copied to tags upon successful passing of this vote.
>>>> Full URLs in e-mails please.
>>>> Also it should be a TAG not a branch, as it should be kept if the vote
>>>> is successful
>>>>
>>>>> This vote will be open for 72-hours, 2016/05/05 0500 UTC.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts as version 2.1
>>>>> [ ] 0 OK, but...
>>>>> [X] -1 I oppose these artifacts as version 2.1 because..
>>>> As above.
>>>>
>>>> No need necessarily to rebuild everything as most of the concerns
>>>> relate to the vote e-mail and the site.
>>>> e.g. you can rename the branch as a tag.
>>>>
>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
I have now found the Clirr Report at
http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html
There are still some breaking changes that affect BC as far as I can
tell, so that means I need to vote
-1
On 2 May 2016 at 11:31, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also the sandbox tree is missing from the source archives.
> Yet there are sandbox jars in Nexus.
> We cannot publish source to Maven that is not also in the source artifacts.
>
> If the sandbox code is not intended to be released, it should be moved
> from trunk.
>
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 11:16, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also please include a link to the KEYS file, i.e.
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>
>> Note that the standard download page is
>>
>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/download_vfs.html
>>
>> I think that should be in the site menu.
>>
>> The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
>> users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
>> should not be the primary download page.
>>
>> Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
>> release artifacts:
>> commons-vfs-2.1-bin
>> and
>> commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
>>
>> etc.
>>
>>
>> Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of them?
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 at 10:40, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2 May 2016 at 05:28, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
>>>>
>>>> Maven repository:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
>>>
>>> The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
>>> URL is transitory.
>>> The hashes allow one to tie the released files back to the vote thread.
>>>
>>> They can be copied from the Nexus mail.
>>>
>>>> Artifacts:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
>>>
>>> Likewise here we include the revision id of the URL:
>>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/
>>>
>>>
>>>> Staged site:
>>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
>>>
>>> There's no Clirr report that I could find.
>>>
>>> Also the download page links to trunk rather than the specific tag.
>>>
>>>> All reports are available in the provided staged Maven site. JIRA-generated
>>>> release notes are available in the dist.a.o "Artifacts" repository. Unit
>>>> tests pass and the RC was built util JDK6.
>>>
>>> E-mail should really have URL to make it easy for reviewers.
>>>
>>>> The current code is available in branches/VFS-2.1 at r1741921. This is what
>>>> will be copied to tags upon successful passing of this vote.
>>>
>>> Full URLs in e-mails please.
>>> Also it should be a TAG not a branch, as it should be kept if the vote
>>> is successful
>>>
>>>> This vote will be open for 72-hours, 2016/05/05 0500 UTC.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts as version 2.1
>>>> [ ] 0 OK, but...
>>>> [X] -1 I oppose these artifacts as version 2.1 because..
>>>
>>> As above.
>>>
>>> No need necessarily to rebuild everything as most of the concerns
>>> relate to the vote e-mail and the site.
>>> e.g. you can rename the branch as a tag.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Josh
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
Hrm, so I either botched the build command (highly possible) or the
source archive is screwed up and doesn't include it.
Can someone please enlighten me as to whether or not the sandbox should
actually be included?
sebb wrote:
> Also the sandbox tree is missing from the source archives.
> Yet there are sandbox jars in Nexus.
> We cannot publish source to Maven that is not also in the source artifacts.
>
> If the sandbox code is not intended to be released, it should be moved
> from trunk.
>
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 11:16, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also please include a link to the KEYS file, i.e.
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>
>> Note that the standard download page is
>>
>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/download_vfs.html
>>
>> I think that should be in the site menu.
>>
>> The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
>> users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
>> should not be the primary download page.
>>
>> Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
>> release artifacts:
>> commons-vfs-2.1-bin
>> and
>> commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
>>
>> etc.
>>
>>
>> Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of them?
>>
>> On 2 May 2016 at 10:40, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2 May 2016 at 05:28, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
>>>>
>>>> Maven repository:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
>>> The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
>>> URL is transitory.
>>> The hashes allow one to tie the released files back to the vote thread.
>>>
>>> They can be copied from the Nexus mail.
>>>
>>>> Artifacts:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
>>> Likewise here we include the revision id of the URL:
>>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/
>>>
>>>
>>>> Staged site:
>>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
>>> There's no Clirr report that I could find.
>>>
>>> Also the download page links to trunk rather than the specific tag.
>>>
>>>> All reports are available in the provided staged Maven site. JIRA-generated
>>>> release notes are available in the dist.a.o "Artifacts" repository. Unit
>>>> tests pass and the RC was built util JDK6.
>>> E-mail should really have URL to make it easy for reviewers.
>>>
>>>> The current code is available in branches/VFS-2.1 at r1741921. This is what
>>>> will be copied to tags upon successful passing of this vote.
>>> Full URLs in e-mails please.
>>> Also it should be a TAG not a branch, as it should be kept if the vote
>>> is successful
>>>
>>>> This vote will be open for 72-hours, 2016/05/05 0500 UTC.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts as version 2.1
>>>> [ ] 0 OK, but...
>>>> [X] -1 I oppose these artifacts as version 2.1 because..
>>> As above.
>>>
>>> No need necessarily to rebuild everything as most of the concerns
>>> relate to the vote e-mail and the site.
>>> e.g. you can rename the branch as a tag.
>>>
>>>> - Josh
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
Also the sandbox tree is missing from the source archives.
Yet there are sandbox jars in Nexus.
We cannot publish source to Maven that is not also in the source artifacts.
If the sandbox code is not intended to be released, it should be moved
from trunk.
On 2 May 2016 at 11:16, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also please include a link to the KEYS file, i.e.
>
> https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>
> Note that the standard download page is
>
> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/download_vfs.html
>
> I think that should be in the site menu.
>
> The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
> users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
> should not be the primary download page.
>
> Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
> release artifacts:
> commons-vfs-2.1-bin
> and
> commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
>
> etc.
>
>
> Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of them?
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 10:40, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2 May 2016 at 05:28, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
>>>
>>> Maven repository:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
>>
>> The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
>> URL is transitory.
>> The hashes allow one to tie the released files back to the vote thread.
>>
>> They can be copied from the Nexus mail.
>>
>>> Artifacts:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
>>
>> Likewise here we include the revision id of the URL:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/
>>
>>
>>> Staged site:
>>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
>>
>> There's no Clirr report that I could find.
>>
>> Also the download page links to trunk rather than the specific tag.
>>
>>> All reports are available in the provided staged Maven site. JIRA-generated
>>> release notes are available in the dist.a.o "Artifacts" repository. Unit
>>> tests pass and the RC was built util JDK6.
>>
>> E-mail should really have URL to make it easy for reviewers.
>>
>>> The current code is available in branches/VFS-2.1 at r1741921. This is what
>>> will be copied to tags upon successful passing of this vote.
>>
>> Full URLs in e-mails please.
>> Also it should be a TAG not a branch, as it should be kept if the vote
>> is successful
>>
>>> This vote will be open for 72-hours, 2016/05/05 0500 UTC.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts as version 2.1
>>> [ ] 0 OK, but...
>>> [X] -1 I oppose these artifacts as version 2.1 because..
>>
>> As above.
>>
>> No need necessarily to rebuild everything as most of the concerns
>> relate to the vote e-mail and the site.
>> e.g. you can rename the branch as a tag.
>>
>>>
>>> - Josh
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
Also please include a link to the KEYS file, i.e.
https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
Note that the standard download page is
http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/download_vfs.html
I think that should be in the site menu.
The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
should not be the primary download page.
Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
release artifacts:
commons-vfs-2.1-bin
and
commons-vfs2-distribution-2.1-bin
etc.
Are they supposed to be the same? If not what is missing from one of them?
On 2 May 2016 at 10:40, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 May 2016 at 05:28, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
>>
>> Maven repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
>
> The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
> URL is transitory.
> The hashes allow one to tie the released files back to the vote thread.
>
> They can be copied from the Nexus mail.
>
>> Artifacts:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
>
> Likewise here we include the revision id of the URL:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/
>
>
>> Staged site:
>> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
>
> There's no Clirr report that I could find.
>
> Also the download page links to trunk rather than the specific tag.
>
>> All reports are available in the provided staged Maven site. JIRA-generated
>> release notes are available in the dist.a.o "Artifacts" repository. Unit
>> tests pass and the RC was built util JDK6.
>
> E-mail should really have URL to make it easy for reviewers.
>
>> The current code is available in branches/VFS-2.1 at r1741921. This is what
>> will be copied to tags upon successful passing of this vote.
>
> Full URLs in e-mails please.
> Also it should be a TAG not a branch, as it should be kept if the vote
> is successful
>
>> This vote will be open for 72-hours, 2016/05/05 0500 UTC.
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts as version 2.1
>> [ ] 0 OK, but...
>> [X] -1 I oppose these artifacts as version 2.1 because..
>
> As above.
>
> No need necessarily to rebuild everything as most of the concerns
> relate to the vote e-mail and the site.
> e.g. you can rename the branch as a tag.
>
>>
>> - Josh
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 2 May 2016 at 05:28, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
>
> Maven repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
URL is transitory.
The hashes allow one to tie the released files back to the vote thread.
They can be copied from the Nexus mail.
> Artifacts:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
Likewise here we include the revision id of the URL:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/
> Staged site:
> http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
There's no Clirr report that I could find.
Also the download page links to trunk rather than the specific tag.
> All reports are available in the provided staged Maven site. JIRA-generated
> release notes are available in the dist.a.o "Artifacts" repository. Unit
> tests pass and the RC was built util JDK6.
E-mail should really have URL to make it easy for reviewers.
> The current code is available in branches/VFS-2.1 at r1741921. This is what
> will be copied to tags upon successful passing of this vote.
Full URLs in e-mails please.
Also it should be a TAG not a branch, as it should be kept if the vote
is successful
> This vote will be open for 72-hours, 2016/05/05 0500 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts as version 2.1
> [ ] 0 OK, but...
> [X] -1 I oppose these artifacts as version 2.1 because..
As above.
No need necessarily to rebuild everything as most of the concerns
relate to the vote e-mail and the site.
e.g. you can rename the branch as a tag.
>
> - Josh
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org