You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by sebb <se...@gmail.com> on 2010/11/17 02:27:14 UTC
[VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
Changes since RC1 are:
- drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
- include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
[ ] +1 release it
[ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
[ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Gary Gregory
<GG...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel F. Savarese [mailto:dfs@savarese.org]
>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 10:50
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
>>
>>
>> In message <02AA127CD8DCDE48BC7D2DFB6C87083A07DDA909@nwt-s-
>> mbx2.rocketsoftware.
>> com>, Gary Gregory writes:
>> >I do not think we should base decisions like this on a byte count, relative=
>> > or not. I like to think of what users do with this stuff.
>>
>> To be clear, the reason for removing the extra jars from commons-net was
>> that their inclusion did not appear to have been purposeful, having been
>> picked up by a *.jar filter that would pick up any new .jar artifacts that
>> happened to be built. I had no idea the extra jars were being included
>> and neither did sebb. Comments about bloat were secondary in addition to
>> the primary goal of wanting to correct what appeared to be an unintentional
>> accident.
>>
>> That said, at no time do I recall any commons-net user make a request
>> for including additional artifacts, specifically source code, in the
>> binary distribution. Does anyone involved in this thread actually
>> use commons-net and the javadoc/source jars in its binary distribution?
>
> <minorRant>
> I use 9 [commons] components (but not [net] directly) and IMO all should do the same thing. It's maddening that [commons] is one project but all of its components spin their wheels about artifact id's, package names with or without versions, what file is in what distro, etc. Yes, I understand we are a volunteer-based organization and people want to do what they want to do. But still, some consistency goes a long way.
> </minorRant>
>
> <tangent>
> I'd love to be able to use a commons-all.jar even if I only directly use half the components.
> </tangent>
>
>>
>> Setting aside that the extra jars are available via the maven repository
>> for anyone who needs them, if it's important to include javadoc and
>> source jars, the only thing that makes any sense to me is to include the
>> javadoc jar in the binary distribution and omit an extracted documentation
>> tree. Every Java developer, using an IDE or not, knows how to run
>> jar -x to extract the javadocs (of course, they should also know how to
>> create a jar).
>>
>> The source jar can go in the source distribution, omitting the
>> extracted directory tree already contained in the jar. In general,
>> when you download a binary distribution you do not expect for it
>> to include source code. Likewise, when you download source code,
>> you don't expect it to include binaries. I do not think it is
>> unreasonable for someone who wants both binaries and source code to
>> download both the binary and source distributions. If the world is
>> such that people expect source code to be present in a binary
>> distribution, then I capitulate.
>
> I think we need to look at user stories to guide this decision. I see three:
>
> (1) Drop-in the latest and greatest.
> I want to replace a previous version: I download the bin zip, unzip it and drop in the jar.
>
> (2) Development
> I am an API user. Seeing the source is key for debugging and otherwise informative, including seeing the Javadoc. I download the bin zip, unzip it and drop the jar in my IDE. I tell the IDE to match the bin jar with the src jar.
>
> (3) Custom build
> I want to make a custom build so I download the src zip and hack away.
>
> In all these cases, I download one zip file. Why make it harder?
+1
Niall
> Thoughts?
>
> Side note: I never use the javadoc jar.
>
> Perhaps this argues for three distros: bin, ide, and src. This uses even more bandwidth. In the quest for simplicity, we can go the other way and only provide ONE all in one distro (my preference.)
>
No please 2 distros is enough.
Niall
> Gary
>
>> This is not a big deal other than
>> in the hypothetical case where a sufficient number of projects add
>> redundant artifacts to distributions so that all those extra bytes
>> consume excessive bandwidth when mirrors pull from the ASF. A number
>> of years ago we were advised by infrastructure to remove old releases
>> to reduce bandwidth consumption when mirrors pulled. Halving the
>> size of the binary release would be consistent with that overall goal.
>>
>> The above is merely my opinion, not a call to action. This matter
>> isn't worth the time expended so far on it, so whatever ends up
>> happening is fine by me. However, let's please avoid indirectly
>> denigrating remarks. I didn't "start a mess." All I did was vote
>> on a release. How others react is not my doing.
>>
>> daniel
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel F. Savarese [mailto:dfs@savarese.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 10:50
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
>
>
> In message <02AA127CD8DCDE48BC7D2DFB6C87083A07DDA909@nwt-s-
> mbx2.rocketsoftware.
> com>, Gary Gregory writes:
> >I do not think we should base decisions like this on a byte count, relative=
> > or not. I like to think of what users do with this stuff.
>
> To be clear, the reason for removing the extra jars from commons-net was
> that their inclusion did not appear to have been purposeful, having been
> picked up by a *.jar filter that would pick up any new .jar artifacts that
> happened to be built. I had no idea the extra jars were being included
> and neither did sebb. Comments about bloat were secondary in addition to
> the primary goal of wanting to correct what appeared to be an unintentional
> accident.
>
> That said, at no time do I recall any commons-net user make a request
> for including additional artifacts, specifically source code, in the
> binary distribution. Does anyone involved in this thread actually
> use commons-net and the javadoc/source jars in its binary distribution?
<minorRant>
I use 9 [commons] components (but not [net] directly) and IMO all should do the same thing. It's maddening that [commons] is one project but all of its components spin their wheels about artifact id's, package names with or without versions, what file is in what distro, etc. Yes, I understand we are a volunteer-based organization and people want to do what they want to do. But still, some consistency goes a long way.
</minorRant>
<tangent>
I'd love to be able to use a commons-all.jar even if I only directly use half the components.
</tangent>
>
> Setting aside that the extra jars are available via the maven repository
> for anyone who needs them, if it's important to include javadoc and
> source jars, the only thing that makes any sense to me is to include the
> javadoc jar in the binary distribution and omit an extracted documentation
> tree. Every Java developer, using an IDE or not, knows how to run
> jar -x to extract the javadocs (of course, they should also know how to
> create a jar).
>
> The source jar can go in the source distribution, omitting the
> extracted directory tree already contained in the jar. In general,
> when you download a binary distribution you do not expect for it
> to include source code. Likewise, when you download source code,
> you don't expect it to include binaries. I do not think it is
> unreasonable for someone who wants both binaries and source code to
> download both the binary and source distributions. If the world is
> such that people expect source code to be present in a binary
> distribution, then I capitulate.
I think we need to look at user stories to guide this decision. I see three:
(1) Drop-in the latest and greatest.
I want to replace a previous version: I download the bin zip, unzip it and drop in the jar.
(2) Development
I am an API user. Seeing the source is key for debugging and otherwise informative, including seeing the Javadoc. I download the bin zip, unzip it and drop the jar in my IDE. I tell the IDE to match the bin jar with the src jar.
(3) Custom build
I want to make a custom build so I download the src zip and hack away.
In all these cases, I download one zip file. Why make it harder?
Thoughts?
Side note: I never use the javadoc jar.
Perhaps this argues for three distros: bin, ide, and src. This uses even more bandwidth. In the quest for simplicity, we can go the other way and only provide ONE all in one distro (my preference.)
Gary
> This is not a big deal other than
> in the hypothetical case where a sufficient number of projects add
> redundant artifacts to distributions so that all those extra bytes
> consume excessive bandwidth when mirrors pull from the ASF. A number
> of years ago we were advised by infrastructure to remove old releases
> to reduce bandwidth consumption when mirrors pulled. Halving the
> size of the binary release would be consistent with that overall goal.
>
> The above is merely my opinion, not a call to action. This matter
> isn't worth the time expended so far on it, so whatever ends up
> happening is fine by me. However, let's please avoid indirectly
> denigrating remarks. I didn't "start a mess." All I did was vote
> on a release. How others react is not my doing.
>
> daniel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 19/11/2010 03:36, Gary Gregory a écrit :
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 18:34
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
>>
>> On 19 November 2010 02:07, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/18/10 8:43 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 19 November 2010 01:12, Gary Gregory<GG...@seagullsoftware.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know we've gone back and forth but I think it would be nice to adopt a
>>>>> convention to include source and javadoc in the bin distro.
>>>>
>>>> OK by me so long as there is only one copy of the javadoc in the bin
>>>> distro.
>>>
>>> Why? In that case, I would ditch the jar; but some people like that. Is it
>>> really that big? I bet [math] is the biggest and I don't recall it adding
>>> that much heft.
>>
>> In the case of NET:
>>
>> 1843782 commons-net-2.2-javadoc.jar
>> 212453 commons-net-2.2.jar
>> 377467 commons-net-2.2-sources.jar
>>
>> The Javadoc is nearly 10 times the size of the binary code.
>
> I do not think we should base decisions like this on a byte count, relative or not. I like to think of what users do with this stuff.
As it seems adding this stuff in the binary jar is for IDE, isn't the
source jar inclusion sufficient ? IDEs are smart enough to extract the
javadoc themselves from the source. They always display only a small
part (like one method javadoc in a popup window when your mouse hover on
a call to the method), so the complete structured javadoc may be overkill ?
If this is really the case, we could simply add the source as a
compromise between two extreme positions.
Luc
>
> Gary
>
>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>> From my POV, I get the bin distro to use from an IDE, so I really want
>>>>> the source jar. I used the src distro to fix bugs and add features.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not worth holding back a release but can we enforce whatever the
>>>>> bin/src distro pattern is in the commons parent POM?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary Gregory
>>>>> Senior Software Engineer
>>>>> Rocket Software
>>>>> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 . Atlanta, GA 30326 . USA
>>>>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560
>>>>> Email: ggregory@seagullsoftware.com
>>>>> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Oliver Heger [mailto:oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 23:22
>>>>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not
>>>>>> contain the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So +1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tag:
>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sebb [mailto:sebbaz@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 18:34
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
>
> On 19 November 2010 02:07, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/18/10 8:43 PM, sebb wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19 November 2010 01:12, Gary Gregory<GG...@seagullsoftware.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I know we've gone back and forth but I think it would be nice to adopt a
> >>> convention to include source and javadoc in the bin distro.
> >>
> >> OK by me so long as there is only one copy of the javadoc in the bin
> >> distro.
> >
> > Why? In that case, I would ditch the jar; but some people like that. Is it
> > really that big? I bet [math] is the biggest and I don't recall it adding
> > that much heft.
>
> In the case of NET:
>
> 1843782 commons-net-2.2-javadoc.jar
> 212453 commons-net-2.2.jar
> 377467 commons-net-2.2-sources.jar
>
> The Javadoc is nearly 10 times the size of the binary code.
I do not think we should base decisions like this on a byte count, relative or not. I like to think of what users do with this stuff.
Gary
>
> > Phil
> >>
> >>> From my POV, I get the bin distro to use from an IDE, so I really want
> >>> the source jar. I used the src distro to fix bugs and add features.
> >>>
> >>> It is not worth holding back a release but can we enforce whatever the
> >>> bin/src distro pattern is in the commons parent POM?
> >>>
> >>> Gary Gregory
> >>> Senior Software Engineer
> >>> Rocket Software
> >>> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 . Atlanta, GA 30326 . USA
> >>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560
> >>> Email: ggregory@seagullsoftware.com
> >>> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Oliver Heger [mailto:oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 23:22
> >>>> To: Commons Developers List
> >>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
> >>>>
> >>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
> >>>>
> >>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not
> >>>> contain the source and Javadocs jar.
> >>>>
> >>>> So +1.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oliver
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
> >>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
> >>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ ] +1 release it
> >>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
> >>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> tag:
> >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 19 November 2010 02:07, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/10 8:43 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 19 November 2010 01:12, Gary Gregory<GG...@seagullsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I know we've gone back and forth but I think it would be nice to adopt a
>>> convention to include source and javadoc in the bin distro.
>>
>> OK by me so long as there is only one copy of the javadoc in the bin
>> distro.
>
> Why? In that case, I would ditch the jar; but some people like that. Is it
> really that big? I bet [math] is the biggest and I don't recall it adding
> that much heft.
In the case of NET:
1843782 commons-net-2.2-javadoc.jar
212453 commons-net-2.2.jar
377467 commons-net-2.2-sources.jar
The Javadoc is nearly 10 times the size of the binary code.
> Phil
>>
>>> From my POV, I get the bin distro to use from an IDE, so I really want
>>> the source jar. I used the src distro to fix bugs and add features.
>>>
>>> It is not worth holding back a release but can we enforce whatever the
>>> bin/src distro pattern is in the commons parent POM?
>>>
>>> Gary Gregory
>>> Senior Software Engineer
>>> Rocket Software
>>> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 . Atlanta, GA 30326 . USA
>>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560
>>> Email: ggregory@seagullsoftware.com
>>> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Oliver Heger [mailto:oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 23:22
>>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
>>>>
>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>
>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not
>>>> contain the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>>
>>>> So +1.
>>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>
>>>>> tag:
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>
>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>
>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 11/18/10 8:43 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 19 November 2010 01:12, Gary Gregory<GG...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
>> I know we've gone back and forth but I think it would be nice to adopt a convention to include source and javadoc in the bin distro.
>
> OK by me so long as there is only one copy of the javadoc in the bin distro.
Why? In that case, I would ditch the jar; but some people like
that. Is it really that big? I bet [math] is the biggest and I
don't recall it adding that much heft.
Phil
>
>> From my POV, I get the bin distro to use from an IDE, so I really want the source jar. I used the src distro to fix bugs and add features.
>>
>> It is not worth holding back a release but can we enforce whatever the bin/src distro pattern is in the commons parent POM?
>>
>> Gary Gregory
>> Senior Software Engineer
>> Rocket Software
>> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 . Atlanta, GA 30326 . USA
>> Tel: +1.404.760.1560
>> Email: ggregory@seagullsoftware.com
>> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Oliver Heger [mailto:oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 23:22
>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
>>>
>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>
>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not
>>> contain the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>
>>> So +1.
>>>
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>
>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>
>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>
>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>
>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>
>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 19 November 2010 01:12, Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
> I know we've gone back and forth but I think it would be nice to adopt a convention to include source and javadoc in the bin distro.
OK by me so long as there is only one copy of the javadoc in the bin distro.
> From my POV, I get the bin distro to use from an IDE, so I really want the source jar. I used the src distro to fix bugs and add features.
>
> It is not worth holding back a release but can we enforce whatever the bin/src distro pattern is in the commons parent POM?
>
> Gary Gregory
> Senior Software Engineer
> Rocket Software
> 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 . Atlanta, GA 30326 . USA
> Tel: +1.404.760.1560
> Email: ggregory@seagullsoftware.com
> Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Oliver Heger [mailto:oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 23:22
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
>>
>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>
>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not
>> contain the source and Javadocs jar.
>>
>> So +1.
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>> > This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>> >
>> > Changes since RC1 are:
>> > - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>> > - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>> >
>> > [ ] +1 release it
>> > [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>> > [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>> >
>> > tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>> >
>> > site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>> >
>> > Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>> >
>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>> >
>> > Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
I know we've gone back and forth but I think it would be nice to adopt a convention to include source and javadoc in the bin distro.
>From my POV, I get the bin distro to use from an IDE, so I really want the source jar. I used the src distro to fix bugs and add features.
It is not worth holding back a release but can we enforce whatever the bin/src distro pattern is in the commons parent POM?
Gary Gregory
Senior Software Engineer
Rocket Software
3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 820 . Atlanta, GA 30326 . USA
Tel: +1.404.760.1560
Email: ggregory@seagullsoftware.com
Web: seagull.rocketsoftware.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oliver Heger [mailto:oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 23:22
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
>
> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>
> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not
> contain the source and Javadocs jar.
>
> So +1.
>
> Oliver
>
> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
> > This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
> >
> > Changes since RC1 are:
> > - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
> > - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
> >
> > [ ] +1 release it
> > [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
> > [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
> >
> > tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
> >
> > site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
> >
> > Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
> >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
> >
> > Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Ralph Goers
<ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Thanks, but I'm still not sure I'll change anything in VFS. I prefer having both the source and binary archives built in the same project. With the change to the Apache pom the source archive is built in the parent and the binary is built in the dist project.
That's still a better approach as it keeps more of the build standard
with other Apache projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Thanks, but I'm still not sure I'll change anything in VFS. I prefer having both the source and binary archives built in the same project. With the change to the Apache pom the source archive is built in the parent and the binary is built in the dist project. As we also discussed, it may be possible to get the assembly plugin to work correctly in Maven 3. If that happens I will gladly remove the dist project and move building the binary distribution to the parent project and let the source distribution be constructed as you describe here.
The real topic of this thread though, is what to include in the binary distribution archive. I'm planning on including the source and javadoc jar in VFS since it doesn't appear the community wants to set guidelines for all of commons.
Ralph
On Nov 23, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
> Ralph,
> We made the change to easily allow projects to select the tar.gz & zip
> source distribution now and it's being staged for a vote today:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1038139
>
> Once this is released and you update to the new Apache pom, you can
> select the tar.gz assembly simply by adding this property:
> <sourceReleaseAssemblyDescriptor>source-release-zip-tar</sourceReleaseAssemblyDescriptor>
>
> Then you can get rid of the duplicated assembly.xml setup we added at
> ApacheCon and the associated assembly plugin config.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/18/10 10:27 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/11/2010 15:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
>>>
>>> The definitive ASF position is:
>>> - the ASF releases source code
>>> - the src release should contain everything needed to build
>>> - binary releases are optional
>>> - binary releases, if provided, should be derivable from the src release
>>
>> +1 - and the actual release is what we put on dist/.
>> Traditionally we have provided both source and binary distributions there,
>> archived as gzipped tars and zip files.
>>
>> We have never had hard rules on what is required in Commons releases other
>> than the above (and NOTICE, LICENSE and headers stuff) and I am -1 on adding
>> them now. I don't even think we should *require* maven artifacts; though
>> RMs are encouraged to publish them or ask others to help. Again, the actual
>> release is the zips and tarballs available on the download pages. And in
>> fact the source is what is actually being released - the binaries are a
>> convenience for users.
>>>
>>> (I know - the above list misses out a bunch of stuff)
>>>
>>>> The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution
>>>> zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source
>>>> distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an
>>>> IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I
>>>> need to change that before I do it.
>>>
>>> Projects are free to impose additional restrictions on themselves if
>>> they wish.
>>>
>>> From an ASF perspective you are fine.
>>>
>>> From a Commons perspective, ENOCLUE. In your shoes, and in the absence
>>> of a documented Commons policy on exactly what should and should not be
>>> in a binary distribution, I'd go with whatever you think is best and if
>>> folks don't like it they are free to provide patches for the next release.
>>
>> It is up to the RM what additional jars to put into the binary release.
>> Obviously, the RM should listen to the community. Since it is dead easy to
>> include javadoc and sources jars in maven-generated releases, and some users
>> seem to like them, I personally include them for the releases that I cut.
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not
>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's deliberate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>>>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>>>>> download the source archive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>>>>> Maven distribution only
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason
>>>>> people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier
>>>>> for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So +1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tag:
>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
Ralph,
We made the change to easily allow projects to select the tar.gz & zip
source distribution now and it's being staged for a vote today:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1038139
Once this is released and you update to the new Apache pom, you can
select the tar.gz assembly simply by adding this property:
<sourceReleaseAssemblyDescriptor>source-release-zip-tar</sourceReleaseAssemblyDescriptor>
Then you can get rid of the duplicated assembly.xml setup we added at
ApacheCon and the associated assembly plugin config.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/10 10:27 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>> On 18/11/2010 15:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
>>
>> The definitive ASF position is:
>> - the ASF releases source code
>> - the src release should contain everything needed to build
>> - binary releases are optional
>> - binary releases, if provided, should be derivable from the src release
>
> +1 - and the actual release is what we put on dist/.
> Traditionally we have provided both source and binary distributions there,
> archived as gzipped tars and zip files.
>
> We have never had hard rules on what is required in Commons releases other
> than the above (and NOTICE, LICENSE and headers stuff) and I am -1 on adding
> them now. I don't even think we should *require* maven artifacts; though
> RMs are encouraged to publish them or ask others to help. Again, the actual
> release is the zips and tarballs available on the download pages. And in
> fact the source is what is actually being released - the binaries are a
> convenience for users.
>>
>> (I know - the above list misses out a bunch of stuff)
>>
>>> The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution
>>> zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source
>>> distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an
>>> IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I
>>> need to change that before I do it.
>>
>> Projects are free to impose additional restrictions on themselves if
>> they wish.
>>
>> From an ASF perspective you are fine.
>>
>> From a Commons perspective, ENOCLUE. In your shoes, and in the absence
>> of a documented Commons policy on exactly what should and should not be
>> in a binary distribution, I'd go with whatever you think is best and if
>> folks don't like it they are free to provide patches for the next release.
>
> It is up to the RM what additional jars to put into the binary release.
> Obviously, the RM should listen to the community. Since it is dead easy to
> include javadoc and sources jars in maven-generated releases, and some users
> seem to like them, I personally include them for the releases that I cut.
>
> Phil
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not
>>>>>> contain
>>>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's deliberate.
>>>>>
>>>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>>>> download the source archive.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>>>> Maven distribution only
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason
>>>> people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier
>>>> for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>>>
>>>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>> So +1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tag:
>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 11/18/10 10:27 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 18/11/2010 15:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
>
> The definitive ASF position is:
> - the ASF releases source code
> - the src release should contain everything needed to build
> - binary releases are optional
> - binary releases, if provided, should be derivable from the src release
+1 - and the actual release is what we put on dist/.
Traditionally we have provided both source and binary distributions
there, archived as gzipped tars and zip files.
We have never had hard rules on what is required in Commons releases
other than the above (and NOTICE, LICENSE and headers stuff) and I
am -1 on adding them now. I don't even think we should *require*
maven artifacts; though RMs are encouraged to publish them or ask
others to help. Again, the actual release is the zips and tarballs
available on the download pages. And in fact the source is what is
actually being released - the binaries are a convenience for users.
>
> (I know - the above list misses out a bunch of stuff)
>
>> The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do it.
>
> Projects are free to impose additional restrictions on themselves if
> they wish.
>
> From an ASF perspective you are fine.
>
> From a Commons perspective, ENOCLUE. In your shoes, and in the absence
> of a documented Commons policy on exactly what should and should not be
> in a binary distribution, I'd go with whatever you think is best and if
> folks don't like it they are free to provide patches for the next release.
It is up to the RM what additional jars to put into the binary
release. Obviously, the RM should listen to the community. Since
it is dead easy to include javadoc and sources jars in
maven-generated releases, and some users seem to like them, I
personally include them for the releases that I cut.
Phil
>
> Mark
>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>>
>>>> That's deliberate.
>>>>
>>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>>> download the source archive.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>>> Maven distribution only
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>>
>>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>> So +1.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 18/11/2010 15:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
> It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
The definitive ASF position is:
- the ASF releases source code
- the src release should contain everything needed to build
- binary releases are optional
- binary releases, if provided, should be derivable from the src release
(I know - the above list misses out a bunch of stuff)
> The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do it.
Projects are free to impose additional restrictions on themselves if
they wish.
>From an ASF perspective you are fine.
>From a Commons perspective, ENOCLUE. In your shoes, and in the absence
of a documented Commons policy on exactly what should and should not be
in a binary distribution, I'd go with whatever you think is best and if
folks don't like it they are free to provide patches for the next release.
Mark
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>
>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>
>>> That's deliberate.
>>>
>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>> download the source archive.
>>>
>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>> Maven distribution only
>>
>>
>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>
>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>>> So +1.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>
>>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>
>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>
>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Gary Gregory <GG...@seagullsoftware.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 07:12
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Release distribution contents.
>
> It would be good to have a definitive position on this.
IMO, it would be even good-er to have a [commons]-wide position on this.
G
The VFS build includes
> the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a
> separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while
> the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another
> release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do
> it.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> > On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
> >> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de>
> wrote:
> >>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
> >>>
> >>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
> >>> the source and Javadocs jar.
> >>
> >> That's deliberate.
> >>
> >> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
> >> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
> >> download the source archive.
> >>
> >> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
> >> Maven distribution only
> >
> >
> > Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people
> started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users
> using IDEs that make use of them.
> >
> > Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
> >
> > Phil
> >>
> >>> So +1.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>> Oliver
> >>>
> >>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
> >>>>
> >>>> Changes since RC1 are:
> >>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
> >>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
> >>>>
> >>>> [ ] +1 release it
> >>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
> >>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
> >>>>
> >>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
> >>>>
> >>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
> >>>>
> >>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
> >>>>
> >>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> 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
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Release distribution contents.
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> I haven't started a vote yet on VFS. I thought it would be nice to have a common policy on how to do this for all commons releases. I'd prefer to leave the javadoc and source jars in the binary distribution so I'm not going to change that unless there is a common policy that says otherwise.
>
Sorry, the original email that I responded to had stuff in there about
the NET release, which I believe is what started this whole mess.
Sorry for the noise. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Nov 18, 2010, at 8:21 AM, James Carman wrote:
> A release can't be vetoed anyway. So, you've got one -1 (if I am
> counting correctly). Go ahead and release it if you've got enough
> other folks behind it (minimum of three +1s)
I haven't started a vote yet on VFS. I thought it would be nice to have a common policy on how to do this for all commons releases. I'd prefer to leave the javadoc and source jars in the binary distribution so I'm not going to change that unless there is a common policy that says otherwise.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Jörg Schaible
<jo...@scalaris.com> wrote:
>
> I don't count any -1, even Oliver voted +1.
>
There was a -1 from Daniel Savarese, right?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Jörg Schaible <jo...@scalaris.com>.
James Carman wrote:
> A release can't be vetoed anyway. So, you've got one -1 (if I am
> counting correctly).
I don't count any -1, even Oliver voted +1.
> Go ahead and release it if you've got enough
> other folks behind it (minimum of three +1s)
Personally I don't care if these two jars are part of the binary distro, but
I'd prefer a commons solution used by our components.
Nevertheless, for me it's the same as for Phil: No time to test it yet.
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: Release distribution contents.
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
A release can't be vetoed anyway. So, you've got one -1 (if I am
counting correctly). Go ahead and release it if you've got enough
other folks behind it (minimum of three +1s)
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Niall Pemberton
<ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> It would be good to have a definitive position on this. The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do it.
>>
>
> Theres no right/wrong answer here and either way the release is good
> to go. IMO though these jars are useful to people who don't want to
> build from source but do want to see the source/javadocs int their
> IDE. The reason for taking them out AIUI it was *bloat* - but that
> seems a weak reason to me. I doubt anyone will complain about a few
> extra bytes in the binary distro - but some people might be
> disappointed to not find those jars. AFAIK we have set up all the
> other m2 builds in commons to include them.
>
> Up to you, but if it was me I would revert the change that dropped
> them from the binary distro.
>
> Niall
>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>>
>>>> That's deliberate.
>>>>
>>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>>> download the source archive.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>>> Maven distribution only
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>>
>>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>> So +1.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Release distribution contents.
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18 November 2010 16:09, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> It would be good to have a definitive position on this. The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do it.
>>
>
> Theres no right/wrong answer here and either way the release is good
> to go. IMO though these jars are useful to people who don't want to
> build from source but do want to see the source/javadocs int their
> IDE. The reason for taking them out AIUI it was *bloat* - but that
> seems a weak reason to me. I doubt anyone will complain about a few
> extra bytes in the binary distro - but some people might be
The reason I removed the source and javadoc jars from NET was because
of a complaint.
BTW, I can see that it might be useful to include the source jar in
the binary for IDEs to use.
But given that the Javadoc is already included, is there any need to
include it again as part of a jar?
Generally the source jar is the smallest, so that might satisfy
everyone - i.e. binary archive would contain:
- N&L etc
- binary jar
- source jar
- javadoc (loose)
> disappointed to not find those jars. AFAIK we have set up all the
> other m2 builds in commons to include them.
>
> Up to you, but if it was me I would revert the change that dropped
> them from the binary distro.
>
> Niall
>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>>
>>>> That's deliberate.
>>>>
>>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>>> download the source archive.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>>> Maven distribution only
>>>
>>>
>>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>>
>>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>> So +1.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Release distribution contents.
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> It would be good to have a definitive position on this. The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do it.
>
Theres no right/wrong answer here and either way the release is good
to go. IMO though these jars are useful to people who don't want to
build from source but do want to see the source/javadocs int their
IDE. The reason for taking them out AIUI it was *bloat* - but that
seems a weak reason to me. I doubt anyone will complain about a few
extra bytes in the binary distro - but some people might be
disappointed to not find those jars. AFAIK we have set up all the
other m2 builds in commons to include them.
Up to you, but if it was me I would revert the change that dropped
them from the binary distro.
Niall
> Ralph
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>>
>>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>>
>>> That's deliberate.
>>>
>>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>>> download the source archive.
>>>
>>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>>> Maven distribution only
>>
>>
>> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>>
>> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>>
>> Phil
>>>
>>>> So +1.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>>
>>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>
>>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>>
>>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Release distribution contents.
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
It would be good to have a definitive position on this. The VFS build includes the javadoc and source jars in the distribution zip, even though there is a separate source distribution zip (the source distribution is complete while the source jar is only suitable for use by an IDE). I'm close to doing another release attempt and would like to know if I need to change that before I do it.
Ralph
On Nov 18, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>>
>>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>>
>> That's deliberate.
>>
>> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
>> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
>> download the source archive.
>>
>> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
>> Maven distribution only
>
>
> Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason people started including them a couple of years back was to make it easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
>
> Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
>
> Phil
>>
>>> So +1.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>>
>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>>
>>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>>
>>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>
>>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>>
>>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>>
>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 11/18/10 5:04 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger<ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
>> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>>
>> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
>> the source and Javadocs jar.
>
> That's deliberate.
>
> It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
> jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
> download the source archive.
>
> As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
> Maven distribution only
Personally I am fine not including these jars; but IIUC the reason
people started including them a couple of years back was to make it
easier for users using IDEs that make use of them.
Not voting yet because I have not tested the release yet.
Phil
>
>> So +1.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> Oliver
>>
>> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>>
>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>>
>>> Changes since RC1 are:
>>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>>
>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>
>>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>>
>>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>>
>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18 November 2010 07:22, Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
> Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
>
> The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not contain
> the source and Javadocs jar.
That's deliberate.
It contains the Javadocs as individual files, so including the javadoc
jar is just wasted space, and if users want the source they can
download the source archive.
As far as I was aware, the source and javadocs jars are intended for
Maven distribution only
> So +1.
Thanks.
> Oliver
>
> Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
>>
>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>
>> Changes since RC1 are:
>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>
>> [ ] +1 release it
>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>
>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>
>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>
>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>
>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by Oliver Heger <ol...@oliver-heger.de>.
Build works fine with JDK 1.5 on Windows 7. Artifacts look good.
The only nitpick I found is that the binary distribution does not
contain the source and Javadocs jar.
So +1.
Oliver
Am 17.11.2010 02:27, schrieb sebb:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>
> Changes since RC1 are:
> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>
> [ ] +1 release it
> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>
> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>
> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>
> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>
> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de>.
sebb wrote:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>
> Changes since RC1 are:
> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>
> [ ] +1 release it
> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
+1
works from source with my compiler zoo.
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 19 November 2010 13:29, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
> Le 17/11/2010 02:27, sebb a écrit :
>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>
>> Changes since RC1 are:
>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>
>> [ ] +1 release it
>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>
> -0.
>
> FTPTimestampParserImplTest fails in a French environment under a linux
> system. Setting the LANG environment variable to C allows the test to
> pass. This is probably only a test configuration issue, so not a blocker
> for me.
OK, I'll take a look at that later.
> Another point is that the key 4FAD5F62 used for signing the distribution
> was not found on subkeys.pgp.net key server. It is however in our public
> <http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS> file.
Huh? I uploaded it some time ago (and used it for BSF, IIRC).
It is on the MIT server:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x4FAD5F62&op=index
and
https://pgp.webtru.st/pks/lookup?search=0x4FAD5F62&op=vindex
which is where I get redirected from subkeys.pgp.net.
Perhaps try again - I have noticed search failures occasionally when
checking keys; retrying often works.
> Luc
>
>>
>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>
>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>
>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>
>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 17/11/2010 02:27, sebb a écrit :
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>
> Changes since RC1 are:
> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>
> [ ] +1 release it
> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
-0.
FTPTimestampParserImplTest fails in a French environment under a linux
system. Setting the LANG environment variable to C allows the test to
pass. This is probably only a test configuration issue, so not a blocker
for me.
Another point is that the key 4FAD5F62 used for signing the distribution
was not found on subkeys.pgp.net key server. It is however in our public
<http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS> file.
Luc
>
> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>
> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>
> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>
> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 11/20/10 11:14 AM, sebb wrote:
> Here are the votes:
>
> +1 (* = binding)
>
> Daniel F. Savarese (*)
> Oliver Heger (*)
> Jörg Schaible (*)
> Sebastian Bazley (*)
>
> -0: FTPTimestampParserImplTest fails in a French environment under a
> linux system.
>
> Luc Maisonobe
>
> The vote duly passes.
>
> Note: we'll need a new release soon; binary archive contents and test
> failure can be fixed then.
>
Sorry I missed the gong on this VOTE. Thanks for getting this done,
sebb!
Phil
> On 17 November 2010 01:27, sebb<se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>>
>> Changes since RC1 are:
>> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
>> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>>
>> [ ] +1 release it
>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>>
>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>
>> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>>
>> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>>
>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
[RESULT][VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
Here are the votes:
+1 (* = binding)
Daniel F. Savarese (*)
Oliver Heger (*)
Jörg Schaible (*)
Sebastian Bazley (*)
-0: FTPTimestampParserImplTest fails in a French environment under a
linux system.
Luc Maisonobe
The vote duly passes.
Note: we'll need a new release soon; binary archive contents and test
failure can be fixed then.
On 17 November 2010 01:27, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>
> Changes since RC1 are:
> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>
> [ ] +1 release it
> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>
> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>
> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>
> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>
> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
Better add my vote before I forget ...
On 17 November 2010 01:27, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a vote to release Apache Commons NET 2.2 based on RC3.
>
> Changes since RC1 are:
> - drop unnecessary jars from binary archive
> - include RELEASE-NOTES in binary and source archives
>
> [X] +1 release it
> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
>
> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_2_RC3/
>
> site: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/NET_2_2_RC3/
>
> Archives (Maven and non-Maven) have been uploaded to:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-011/
>
> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org