You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jspwiki.apache.org by Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <ju...@gmail.com> on 2020/12/07 14:30:22 UTC

Current open Pull Requests

Hi,

right now there are 3 opened pull requests:

#14: Update AbstractUserDatabase.java - this is more a request than a PR,
so I'd be +1 on closing it without
merging and redirecting the user to JIRA

#15: Add dependabot config file (also contains a few javadocs fixes) - It
would be a nice to have, but I'd like to
request to add some exclusions (f.ex., servlet-api, jsp-api should not be
upgraded, tomcat's updates should be
ok within 9.x.x range but not for 10.x.x). Also, I've haven't used it so I
don't know how dependabot behaves with
versions not following semantic versioning. For instance, slf4j should stay
on 1.7.30 and not be upgraded to
latest 2.0.0-alpha1

#16: Refine class member fields - this is a big PR, as it affects 71 files.
OTOH, changes on those files are small
enough (mostly adding the final modifier throughout the code). I'd be more
comfortable if we merge this after
2.11.0-M8. There are too many files affected by this PR, and I'd like to
start the release vote tomorrow, so I think
it's better if this kind of change is introduced with more time to see that
there are no unintended side-effects..

sounds reasonable?


best regards,
juan pablo

Re: Current open Pull Requests

Posted by Dirk Frederickx <di...@gmail.com>.
+1

> On 7 Dec 2020, at 18:28, Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> yes, agree on all of them
> 
> cheers,
> Harry
> 
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 15:32, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
>> juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> right now there are 3 opened pull requests:
>> 
>> #14: Update AbstractUserDatabase.java - this is more a request than a PR,
>> so I'd be +1 on closing it without
>> merging and redirecting the user to JIRA
>> 
>> #15: Add dependabot config file (also contains a few javadocs fixes) - It
>> would be a nice to have, but I'd like to
>> request to add some exclusions (f.ex., servlet-api, jsp-api should not be
>> upgraded, tomcat's updates should be
>> ok within 9.x.x range but not for 10.x.x). Also, I've haven't used it so I
>> don't know how dependabot behaves with
>> versions not following semantic versioning. For instance, slf4j should stay
>> on 1.7.30 and not be upgraded to
>> latest 2.0.0-alpha1
>> 
>> #16: Refine class member fields - this is a big PR, as it affects 71 files.
>> OTOH, changes on those files are small
>> enough (mostly adding the final modifier throughout the code). I'd be more
>> comfortable if we merge this after
>> 2.11.0-M8. There are too many files affected by this PR, and I'd like to
>> start the release vote tomorrow, so I think
>> it's better if this kind of change is introduced with more time to see that
>> there are no unintended side-effects..
>> 
>> sounds reasonable?
>> 
>> 
>> best regards,
>> juan pablo
>>

Re: Current open Pull Requests

Posted by Harry Metske <ha...@gmail.com>.
yes, agree on all of them

cheers,
Harry

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 15:32, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez <
juanpablo.santos@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> right now there are 3 opened pull requests:
>
> #14: Update AbstractUserDatabase.java - this is more a request than a PR,
> so I'd be +1 on closing it without
> merging and redirecting the user to JIRA
>
> #15: Add dependabot config file (also contains a few javadocs fixes) - It
> would be a nice to have, but I'd like to
> request to add some exclusions (f.ex., servlet-api, jsp-api should not be
> upgraded, tomcat's updates should be
> ok within 9.x.x range but not for 10.x.x). Also, I've haven't used it so I
> don't know how dependabot behaves with
> versions not following semantic versioning. For instance, slf4j should stay
> on 1.7.30 and not be upgraded to
> latest 2.0.0-alpha1
>
> #16: Refine class member fields - this is a big PR, as it affects 71 files.
> OTOH, changes on those files are small
> enough (mostly adding the final modifier throughout the code). I'd be more
> comfortable if we merge this after
> 2.11.0-M8. There are too many files affected by this PR, and I'd like to
> start the release vote tomorrow, so I think
> it's better if this kind of change is introduced with more time to see that
> there are no unintended side-effects..
>
> sounds reasonable?
>
>
> best regards,
> juan pablo
>