Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

sebb-2-2
On 3 March 2013 13:25,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Author: britter
> Date: Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
> New Revision: 1452037
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
> Log:
> Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords

-1

Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.

$Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$

> Modified:
>     commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java   (contents, props changed)
>
> Modified: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java?rev=1452037&r1=1452036&r2=1452037&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java (original)
> +++ commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
> @@ -22,6 +22,15 @@ import java.util.ArrayList;
>
>  import junit.framework.TestCase;
>
> +/**
> + * getPropertyType return null on second descendant class
> + *
> + * <p />
> + * See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-422
> + * <p />
> + *
> + * @version $Revision$ $Date$
> + */
>  public class Jira422TestCase extends TestCase {
>
>      public void testRootBean() throws Exception {
>
> Propchange: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- svn:keywords (added)
> +++ svn:keywords Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> +Revision
> +Date
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hi sebb,


2013/3/3 sebb <[hidden email]>

> On 3 March 2013 13:25,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Author: britter
> > Date: Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
> > New Revision: 1452037
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
> > Log:
> > Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
>
> -1
>
> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
>
> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
>

Thanks for reviewing. I've just aligned the SVN keywords to all the other
tests in the component.
Is there a commons wide convention on how to use SVN tags? Please point me
to documentation about this and I will change all classes according to that.

If there isn't a convention for all components it has to be discussed for
beanutils how SVN tags have to be changed. Please start a separate thread
for this discussion.

TIA!
Benedikt


>
> > Modified:
> >
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>   (contents, props changed)
> >
> > Modified:
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> > URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java?rev=1452037&r1=1452036&r2=1452037&view=diff
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > ---
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> (original)
> > +++
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
> > @@ -22,6 +22,15 @@ import java.util.ArrayList;
> >
> >  import junit.framework.TestCase;
> >
> > +/**
> > + * getPropertyType return null on second descendant class
> > + *
> > + * <p />
> > + * See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-422
> > + * <p />
> > + *
> > + * @version $Revision$ $Date$
> > + */
> >  public class Jira422TestCase extends TestCase {
> >
> >      public void testRootBean() throws Exception {
> >
> > Propchange:
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --- svn:keywords (added)
> > +++ svn:keywords Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > +Revision
> > +Date
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

sebb-2-2
On 3 March 2013 19:27, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi sebb,
>
>
> 2013/3/3 sebb <[hidden email]>
>
>> On 3 March 2013 13:25,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Author: britter
>> > Date: Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
>> > New Revision: 1452037
>> >
>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
>> > Log:
>> > Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
>>
>> -1
>>
>> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
>> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
>>
>> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
>>
>
> Thanks for reviewing. I've just aligned the SVN keywords to all the other
> tests in the component.
> Is there a commons wide convention on how to use SVN tags? Please point me
> to documentation about this and I will change all classes according to that.

I don't know if there is documentation, but it was all discussed and
agreed on the dev list a year or so ago.

> If there isn't a convention for all components it has to be discussed for
> beanutils how SVN tags have to be changed. Please start a separate thread
> for this discussion.
>
> TIA!
> Benedikt
>
>
>>
>> > Modified:
>> >
>> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>>   (contents, props changed)
>> >
>> > Modified:
>> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> > URL:
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java?rev=1452037&r1=1452036&r2=1452037&view=diff
>> >
>> ==============================================================================
>> > ---
>> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> (original)
>> > +++
>> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
>> > @@ -22,6 +22,15 @@ import java.util.ArrayList;
>> >
>> >  import junit.framework.TestCase;
>> >
>> > +/**
>> > + * getPropertyType return null on second descendant class
>> > + *
>> > + * <p />
>> > + * See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-422
>> > + * <p />
>> > + *
>> > + * @version $Revision$ $Date$
>> > + */
>> >  public class Jira422TestCase extends TestCase {
>> >
>> >      public void testRootBean() throws Exception {
>> >
>> > Propchange:
>> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > --- svn:keywords (added)
>> > +++ svn:keywords Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>> > +Revision
>> > +Date
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> http://github.com/britter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Benedikt Ritter-4
2013/3/3 sebb <[hidden email]>

> On 3 March 2013 19:27, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi sebb,
> >
> >
> > 2013/3/3 sebb <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> On 3 March 2013 13:25,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Author: britter
> >> > Date: Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
> >> > New Revision: 1452037
> >> >
> >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
> >> > Log:
> >> > Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
> >>
> >> -1
> >>
> >> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
> >> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
> >>
> >> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing. I've just aligned the SVN keywords to all the other
> > tests in the component.
> > Is there a commons wide convention on how to use SVN tags? Please point
> me
> > to documentation about this and I will change all classes according to
> that.
>
> I don't know if there is documentation, but it was all discussed and
> agreed on the dev list a year or so ago.
>

Would be nice to have this kind of things documented somewhere in the wiki.
I don't want to search the archives before every commit.
I have created BEANUTILS-430 [1] because a lot of files contain the $Date$
keyword.

Are you okay with this or should I revert the commit anyway?

Regards,
Benedikt

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-430


>
> > If there isn't a convention for all components it has to be discussed for
> > beanutils how SVN tags have to be changed. Please start a separate thread
> > for this discussion.
> >
> > TIA!
> > Benedikt
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > Modified:
> >> >
> >>
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> >>   (contents, props changed)
> >> >
> >> > Modified:
> >>
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> >> > URL:
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java?rev=1452037&r1=1452036&r2=1452037&view=diff
> >> >
> >>
> ==============================================================================
> >> > ---
> >>
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> >> (original)
> >> > +++
> >>
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> >> Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
> >> > @@ -22,6 +22,15 @@ import java.util.ArrayList;
> >> >
> >> >  import junit.framework.TestCase;
> >> >
> >> > +/**
> >> > + * getPropertyType return null on second descendant class
> >> > + *
> >> > + * <p />
> >> > + * See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-422
> >> > + * <p />
> >> > + *
> >> > + * @version $Revision$ $Date$
> >> > + */
> >> >  public class Jira422TestCase extends TestCase {
> >> >
> >> >      public void testRootBean() throws Exception {
> >> >
> >> > Propchange:
> >>
> commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
> >> >
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > --- svn:keywords (added)
> >> > +++ svn:keywords Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> >> > +Revision
> >> > +Date
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> > http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> > http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> > http://github.com/britter
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Simone Tripodi-2
> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$

+1

> Are you okay with this or should I revert the commit anyway?

no needs to revert, just update the sources according to Seb's suggestion

alles gute,
-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Benedikt Ritter-3
I'm a bit short on time right now. I'll try to have another look on this, this weekend.

Benedikt

Send from my mobile device

Am 04.03.2013 um 10:42 schrieb Simone Tripodi <[hidden email]>:

>> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
>
> +1
>
>> Are you okay with this or should I revert the commit anyway?
>
> no needs to revert, just update the sources according to Seb's suggestion
>
> alles gute,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Benedikt Ritter-4
I have changed this for Jira422TestCase.java in r1453986. As I said there
are a lot of classes that also use the combination of $Revision$ and
$Date$. I think I can go ahead and replace those also?

Benedikt


2013/3/5 Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>

> I'm a bit short on time right now. I'll try to have another look on this,
> this weekend.
>
> Benedikt
>
> Send from my mobile device
>
> Am 04.03.2013 um 10:42 schrieb Simone Tripodi <[hidden email]>:
>
> >> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> Are you okay with this or should I revert the commit anyway?
> >
> > no needs to revert, just update the sources according to Seb's suggestion
> >
> > alles gute,
> > -Simo
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> > http://www.99soft.org/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>



--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Simone Tripodi-2
> I have changed this for Jira422TestCase.java in r1453986. As I said there
> are a lot of classes that also use the combination of $Revision$ and
> $Date$. I think I can go ahead and replace those also?

Consistency is IMHO a good thing, and in that specific case I'd go
ahead for $Id$ only

my 2 cents,
-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Benedikt Ritter-4
2013/3/7 Simone Tripodi <[hidden email]>

> > I have changed this for Jira422TestCase.java in r1453986. As I said there
> > are a lot of classes that also use the combination of $Revision$ and
> > $Date$. I think I can go ahead and replace those also?
>
> Consistency is IMHO a good thing, and in that specific case I'd go
> ahead for $Id$ only
>

I've created BEANUTILS-437.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-437


>
> my 2 cents,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 3 March 2013 13:25,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Author: britter
>> Date: Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
>> New Revision: 1452037
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
>> Log:
>> Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
>
> -1
>
> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
>
> $Revision$ is usally enough; if you really want a date, use $id$

I would just like to say that this is very heavy handed vetoing a
change like this over something that is so trivial. It is also an
invalid veto IMO because this is purely documentation AND it is only a
question of style. I would seriously advise you to be more circumspect
in how you chose to cast a veto.

Also, to Benedikt - remember this is a volunteer organisation and you
get to chose where you spend your volunteer hours. Unfortunately only
Sebb can withdraw his veto, but if I was you I would be saying to Sebb
"OK feel free to revert or change it if you wish"

Niall

>> Modified:
>>     commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java   (contents, props changed)
>>
>> Modified: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java?rev=1452037&r1=1452036&r2=1452037&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java (original)
>> +++ commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
>> @@ -22,6 +22,15 @@ import java.util.ArrayList;
>>
>>  import junit.framework.TestCase;
>>
>> +/**
>> + * getPropertyType return null on second descendant class
>> + *
>> + * <p />
>> + * See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEANUTILS-422
>> + * <p />
>> + *
>> + * @version $Revision$ $Date$
>> + */
>>  public class Jira422TestCase extends TestCase {
>>
>>      public void testRootBean() throws Exception {
>>
>> Propchange: commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --- svn:keywords (added)
>> +++ svn:keywords Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>> +Revision
>> +Date
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Mark Thomas
On 07/03/2013 23:39, Niall Pemberton wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 3 March 2013 13:25,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Author: britter
>>> Date: Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
>>> New Revision: 1452037
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
>>> Log:
>>> Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
>>
>> -1
>>
>> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
>> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.

<snip/>

> It is also an
> invalid veto IMO because this is purely documentation AND it is only a
> question of style.

I disagree. Sebb's point regarding the locale issues is a valid one.
Something that makes it significantly harder to verify that a source
tarball agrees with an SVN tag is a major issue when it comes to voting
on releases.

One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag. Different
client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff tooling
the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Niall Pemberton
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 07/03/2013 23:39, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 3 March 2013 13:25,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Author: britter
>>>> Date: Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
>>>> New Revision: 1452037
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
>>>> Log:
>>>> Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
>>> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
>
> <snip/>
>
>> It is also an
>> invalid veto IMO because this is purely documentation AND it is only a
>> question of style.
>
> I disagree. Sebb's point regarding the locale issues is a valid one.
> Something that makes it significantly harder to verify that a source
> tarball agrees with an SVN tag is a major issue when it comes to voting
> on releases.

This IMO is not a technical justification, but a  bureaucratic one and
I still believe casting a veto on documentation style is not valid
IMO.

> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag. Different
> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff tooling
> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.

Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
been created from the tag - otherwise we trust our release managers.
BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
released. But back to the main point here, I don't object to anyone
with the desire to do this making the change - but I do disagree with
it being a veto.

Niall

> Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hi,

Niall, thanks for stepping in for me. It felt harsh to me too to see the
veto, especially when having the the committers guide [1] in mind that
states
"In extreme situations, it may be necessary to veto (-1) a commit but
please beware that this is an extreme sanction and rarely warranted."
This maybe why I reacted a bit petulantly at first. Nevertheless Sebb
usually takes a close look at commits and I think this is very important
for the quality of the code base.

Mark, thanks for pointing out what we need the keywords for. Before I read
your mail I always thought they just replicate meta data that is available
through the SVN client. Now I see why it is important to have the $Id$ in
place.

Benedikt

[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html


2013/3/8 Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]>

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 07/03/2013 23:39, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> On 3 March 2013 13:25,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> Author: britter
> >>>> Date: Sun Mar  3 13:25:24 2013
> >>>> New Revision: 1452037
> >>>>
> >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1452037
> >>>> Log:
> >>>> Add JavaDoc and SVN Keywords
> >>>
> >>> -1
> >>>
> >>> Please don't use $Date$ - it is rendered using the client Locale, and
> >>> so causes problems matching SVN tags against source archives.
> >
> > <snip/>
> >
> >> It is also an
> >> invalid veto IMO because this is purely documentation AND it is only a
> >> question of style.
> >
> > I disagree. Sebb's point regarding the locale issues is a valid one.
> > Something that makes it significantly harder to verify that a source
> > tarball agrees with an SVN tag is a major issue when it comes to voting
> > on releases.
>
> This IMO is not a technical justification, but a  bureaucratic one and
> I still believe casting a veto on documentation style is not valid
> IMO.
>
> > One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
> > release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag. Different
> > client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
> > different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
> > file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff tooling
> > the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>
> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
> been created from the tag - otherwise we trust our release managers.
> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
> released. But back to the main point here, I don't object to anyone
> with the desire to do this making the change - but I do disagree with
> it being a veto.
>
> Niall
>
> > Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Mark Thomas
In reply to this post by Niall Pemberton


Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:

<snip/>

>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>Different
>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>tooling
>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>
>Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>been created from the tag

I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
providing the files agree.

> - otherwise we trust our release managers.

Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
- missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
- extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
build.properties etc)
- wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
- local edits to the source files

Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
that should cause the release to fail.

>BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>released.

If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
same locale you won't see the issue.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Ralph Goers
I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is.  Sebb vetoed a commit and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the veto.  If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the world again.  Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1 but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.

Ralph


On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:

>
>
> Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>> Different
>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>> tooling
>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>>
>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>> been created from the tag
>
> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
> providing the files agree.
>
>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
>
> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
> build.properties etc)
> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
> - local edits to the source files
>
> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
> that should cause the release to fail.
>
>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>> released.
>
> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
> same locale you won't see the issue.
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

sebb-2-2
On 9 March 2013 00:39, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is.  Sebb vetoed a commit and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the veto.  If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the world again.  Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1 but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.

Thanks.

Yes, I agree that it was perhaps unnecessary for the -1, but we had
already agreed some while ago not to use $Date$ and I did not want to
see that creep back in again.

> Ralph
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>>> Different
>>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>>> tooling
>>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>>>
>>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>>> been created from the tag
>>
>> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
>> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
>> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
>> providing the files agree.
>>
>>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
>>
>> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
>> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
>> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
>> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
>> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
>> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
>> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
>> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
>> build.properties etc)
>> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
>> - local edits to the source files
>>
>> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
>> that should cause the release to fail.
>>
>>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>>> released.
>>
>> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
>> same locale you won't see the issue.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Christian Grobmeier
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 9 March 2013 00:39, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is.  Sebb vetoed a commit and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the veto.  If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the world again.  Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1 but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Yes, I agree that it was perhaps unnecessary for the -1, but we had
> already agreed some while ago not to use $Date$ and I did not want to
> see that creep back in again.

This is a discussion which seems to come up from time to time, like
the @author tag thing and so on.
Should we start a Wiki page with that kind of decisions? I think it
would be useful, esp for new people. I think Benedikt has asked for
such kind of docs recently.

Cheers
Christian

>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>>>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>>>> Different
>>>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>>>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>>>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>>>> tooling
>>>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>>>>
>>>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>>>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>>>> been created from the tag
>>>
>>> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
>>> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
>>> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
>>> providing the files agree.
>>>
>>>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
>>>
>>> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
>>> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
>>> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
>>> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
>>> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
>>> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
>>> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
>>> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
>>> build.properties etc)
>>> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
>>> - local edits to the source files
>>>
>>> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
>>> that should cause the release to fail.
>>>
>>>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>>>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>>>> released.
>>>
>>> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
>>> same locale you won't see the issue.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 9 March 2013 00:39, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is.  Sebb vetoed a commit and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the veto.  If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the world again.  Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1 but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Yes, I agree that it was perhaps unnecessary for the -1, but we had
> already agreed some while ago not to use $Date$ and I did not want to
> see that creep back in again.

No, you miss the point - not "unnecessary" - it was an invalid veto
and you should be more circumspect about casting vetos.

Niall


>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>>>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>>>> Different
>>>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>>>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>>>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>>>> tooling
>>>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>>>>
>>>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>>>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>>>> been created from the tag
>>>
>>> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
>>> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
>>> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
>>> providing the files agree.
>>>
>>>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
>>>
>>> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
>>> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
>>> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
>>> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
>>> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
>>> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
>>> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
>>> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
>>> build.properties etc)
>>> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
>>> - local edits to the source files
>>>
>>> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
>>> that should cause the release to fail.
>>>
>>>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>>>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>>>> released.
>>>
>>> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
>>> same locale you won't see the issue.
>>>
>>> Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

sebb-2-2
On 9 March 2013 11:56, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 9 March 2013 00:39, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is.  Sebb vetoed a commit and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the veto.  If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the world again.  Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1 but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Yes, I agree that it was perhaps unnecessary for the -1, but we had
>> already agreed some while ago not to use $Date$ and I did not want to
>> see that creep back in again.
>
> No, you miss the point - not "unnecessary" - it was an invalid veto
> and you should be more circumspect about casting vetos.

I think it's borderline.

I would have voted -1 on the RC, because the tag would not agree with
the source archive.

> Niall
>
>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>>>>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>>>>> Different
>>>>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>>>>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>>>>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>>>>> tooling
>>>>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>>>>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>>>>> been created from the tag
>>>>
>>>> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
>>>> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
>>>> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
>>>> providing the files agree.
>>>>
>>>>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
>>>>
>>>> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
>>>> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
>>>> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
>>>> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
>>>> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
>>>> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
>>>> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
>>>> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
>>>> build.properties etc)
>>>> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
>>>> - local edits to the source files
>>>>
>>>> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
>>>> that should cause the release to fail.
>>>>
>>>>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>>>>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>>>>> released.
>>>>
>>>> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
>>>> same locale you won't see the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] Verifying releases Was: svn commit: r1452037 - /commons/proper/beanutils/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/beanutils/bugs/Jira422TestCase.java

Niall Pemberton
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 12:32 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 9 March 2013 11:56, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 9 March 2013 00:39, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is.  Sebb vetoed a commit and identified exactly what needed to be changed for him to remove the veto.  If the requested change is made then all should be fine with the world again.  Sure, he could have said all the same words without the -1 but then it wouldn't be evident that he expected the change to be made.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree that it was perhaps unnecessary for the -1, but we had
>>> already agreed some while ago not to use $Date$ and I did not want to
>>> see that creep back in again.
>>
>> No, you miss the point - not "unnecessary" - it was an invalid veto
>> and you should be more circumspect about casting vetos.
>
> I think it's borderline.

No, not even close - it was an invalid veto - which have to be for
valid *technical* reasons.

> I would have voted -1 on the RC, because the tag would not agree with
> the source archive.

That IMO would have been unfortunate - but votes and vetos are two
completely different things - since a veto *forces" a change - whereas
a -1 vote is by majority and therefore doesn't mean the release would
have been stopped.

Niall


>> Niall
>>
>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Mark Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the primary responsibilities of a PMC member when voting on a
>>>>>>> release is verifying what is being voted on against the tag.
>>>>>> Different
>>>>>>> client locales and $Date$ combine to make every single source file
>>>>>>> different from the tag requiring a manual check of the diff of every
>>>>>>> file to do the verification check properly. Even with good diff
>>>>>> tooling
>>>>>>> the verification process is a lot slower and can't be automated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its not required for a release - although I would agree its a nice
>>>>>> thing to do.Spot check of the files is good enough to see if it has
>>>>>> been created from the tag
>>>>>
>>>>> I very strongly disagree. Any PMC member voting on a release should be
>>>>> verifying every single file in the src tarball with the tag. There are
>>>>> plenty of tools available that make this the work of a few seconds -
>>>>> providing the files agree.
>>>>>
>>>>>> - otherwise we trust our release managers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not trusting the release managers is not the primary reason that PMC
>>>>> members should be verifying the tarball agrees with the tag (although if
>>>>> a release manager ever does do anything malicious it will catch that
>>>>> to). The primary reason is to catch errors in build process or mistakes
>>>>> made by the release manager. BeanUtils is likely simpler than Tomcat but
>>>>> the sorts of things a full verification has caught has included:
>>>>> - missing files (usually after some form of code re-org)
>>>>> - extra files (IDE files, intermediate files, .svn/.git files,
>>>>> build.properties etc)
>>>>> - wrong line endings (Tomcat tries to use CRLF for zip and LF for tar.gz)
>>>>> - local edits to the source files
>>>>>
>>>>> Some are minor but missing or edited files are clearly serious issues
>>>>> that should cause the release to fail.
>>>>>
>>>>>> BeanUtils has used the $Date$ keyword since 2005 and I cannot remember
>>>>>> it ever coming up in a release vote - so it hasn't stopped it being
>>>>>> released.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the release manager and the people checking the tarball all have the
>>>>> same locale you won't see the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12