[VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

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

[VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Josh Elser
Hi all,

There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like blockers to me).

The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big problem
downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by bugs that have
been fixed (but not release) which is spurring me to take some action.
There have been emails reaching back as far as 2014 asking when the next
release might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
2011 (!).

History aside, I'm reaching out today to:

1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
   1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the release on
your behalf.
2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to release
this version.

Thanks.

- Josh


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

garydgregory
Hi,

Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release ASAP
without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.

As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons committer, so feel
free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.

There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member performing a
release, and I think we just went through this (sorry, I'm in settling in a
new house, not much time to dig in the ML archives).

Does anyone recall?

Gary



On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like blockers to me).
>
> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big problem
> downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by bugs that have been
> fixed (but not release) which is spurring me to take some action. There
> have been emails reaching back as far as 2014 asking when the next release
> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in 2011 (!).
>
> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>
> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>   1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the release on
> your behalf.
> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to release
> this version.
>
> Thanks.
>
> - Josh
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Matt Sicker
It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io 2.5?" A few
people stepped up to give the necessary permissions and committed his GPG
key.

On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release ASAP
> without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>
> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons committer, so feel
> free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>
> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member performing a
> release, and I think we just went through this (sorry, I'm in settling in a
> new house, not much time to dig in the ML archives).
>
> Does anyone recall?
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
> > 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like blockers to
> me).
> >
> > The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big problem
> > downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by bugs that have been
> > fixed (but not release) which is spurring me to take some action. There
> > have been emails reaching back as far as 2014 asking when the next
> release
> > might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in 2011 (!).
> >
> > History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
> >
> > 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
> >   1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the release on
> > your behalf.
> > 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to release
> > this version.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > - Josh
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>



--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Josh Elser
Thanks Matt and Gary.

I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also applies to
commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically though, I am only
interested in cutting a release -- if we can get a new release cut that
we can use downstream, that increases the likelihood that I will have
more things to contribute back :)

I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with any
questions I have after that.

- Josh

Matt Sicker wrote:

> It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io 2.5?" A few
> people stepped up to give the necessary permissions and committed his GPG
> key.
>
> On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release ASAP
>> without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>>
>> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons committer, so feel
>> free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>>
>> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member performing a
>> release, and I think we just went through this (sorry, I'm in settling in a
>> new house, not much time to dig in the ML archives).
>>
>> Does anyone recall?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
>>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like blockers to
>> me).
>>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big problem
>>> downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by bugs that have been
>>> fixed (but not release) which is spurring me to take some action. There
>>> have been emails reaching back as far as 2014 asking when the next
>> release
>>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in 2011 (!).
>>>
>>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>>>
>>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>>>    1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the release on
>>> your behalf.
>>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to release
>>> this version.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> - Josh
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>
>
>

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Josh Elser
Best as I can see, Benson was able to do the commons-io 2.5 release
after someone else added his key to the KEYS file (because had some
separate karma being applied to it which was not included in the
universal-commit change).

Consider this my formal volunteer offer to be RM for commons-vfs 2.1.

Josh Elser wrote:

> Thanks Matt and Gary.
>
> I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also applies to
> commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically though, I am only
> interested in cutting a release -- if we can get a new release cut that
> we can use downstream, that increases the likelihood that I will have
> more things to contribute back :)
>
> I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with any
> questions I have after that.
>
> - Josh
>
> Matt Sicker wrote:
>> It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io 2.5?" A few
>> people stepped up to give the necessary permissions and committed his GPG
>> key.
>>
>> On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release ASAP
>>> without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>>>
>>> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons committer, so
>>> feel
>>> free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>>>
>>> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member performing a
>>> release, and I think we just went through this (sorry, I'm in
>>> settling in a
>>> new house, not much time to dig in the ML archives).
>>>
>>> Does anyone recall?
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
>>>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like blockers to
>>> me).
>>>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big problem
>>>> downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by bugs that have
>>>> been
>>>> fixed (but not release) which is spurring me to take some action. There
>>>> have been emails reaching back as far as 2014 asking when the next
>>> release
>>>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in 2011
>>>> (!).
>>>>
>>>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>>>>
>>>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>>>> 1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the release on
>>>> your behalf.
>>>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to release
>>>> this version.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> - Josh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>> Spring Batch in Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>
>>
>>

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Bernd Eckenfels
In reply to this post by Josh Elser
Hello Josh,

I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:

https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState

As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some work to
get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy that you want to
step in as I havent had the time to do the procedure yet.

And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be doable as
long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be careful about
the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed to other commons
projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag namings (the SVN is a
bit messy in this regard).

My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is because
of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible changes. Most
of them only affect providers if they do not properly use abstract base
classes, but still the list of Clirr violations is long and developers
here have not yet voiced if they would accept a RC with this situation
(or not).

Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a 2.1.1
release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to have
VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be delivered with
2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)

So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I hope I
have enough karma now).

We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a big
chunk of additional work.

Gruss
Bernd

 Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
schrieb Josh Elser <[hidden email]>:

> Thanks Matt and Gary.
>
> I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also applies
> to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically though, I am
> only interested in cutting a release -- if we can get a new release
> cut that we can use downstream, that increases the likelihood that I
> will have more things to contribute back :)
>
> I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
> any questions I have after that.
>
> - Josh
>
> Matt Sicker wrote:
> > It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io 2.5?"
> > A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions and
> > committed his GPG key.
> >
> > On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
> >> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
> >>
> >> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons committer,
> >> so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
> >>
> >> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member performing a
> >> release, and I think we just went through this (sorry, I'm in
> >> settling in a new house, not much time to dig in the ML archives).
> >>
> >> Does anyone recall?
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
> >>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
> >>> blockers to
> >> me).
> >>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
> >>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
> >>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring me
> >>> to take some action. There have been emails reaching back as far
> >>> as 2014 asking when the next
> >> release
> >>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
> >>> 2011 (!).
> >>>
> >>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
> >>>
> >>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
> >>>    1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
> >>> release on your behalf.
> >>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
> >>> release this version.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> - Josh
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> >> Spring Batch in Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

garydgregory
Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a package
and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?

Gary

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello Josh,
>
> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
>
> As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some work to
> get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy that you want to
> step in as I havent had the time to do the procedure yet.
>
> And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be doable as
> long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be careful about
> the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed to other commons
> projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag namings (the SVN is a
> bit messy in this regard).
>
> My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is because
> of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible changes. Most
> of them only affect providers if they do not properly use abstract base
> classes, but still the list of Clirr violations is long and developers
> here have not yet voiced if they would accept a RC with this situation
> (or not).
>
> Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
> important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a 2.1.1
> release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to have
> VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be delivered with
> 2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
>
> So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I hope I
> have enough karma now).
>
> We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a big
> chunk of additional work.
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
>  Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
> schrieb Josh Elser <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Thanks Matt and Gary.
> >
> > I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also applies
> > to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically though, I am
> > only interested in cutting a release -- if we can get a new release
> > cut that we can use downstream, that increases the likelihood that I
> > will have more things to contribute back :)
> >
> > I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
> > any questions I have after that.
> >
> > - Josh
> >
> > Matt Sicker wrote:
> > > It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io 2.5?"
> > > A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions and
> > > committed his GPG key.
> > >
> > > On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
> > >> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
> > >>
> > >> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons committer,
> > >> so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
> > >>
> > >> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member performing a
> > >> release, and I think we just went through this (sorry, I'm in
> > >> settling in a new house, not much time to dig in the ML archives).
> > >>
> > >> Does anyone recall?
> > >>
> > >> Gary
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi all,
> > >>>
> > >>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
> > >>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
> > >>> blockers to
> > >> me).
> > >>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
> > >>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
> > >>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring me
> > >>> to take some action. There have been emails reaching back as far
> > >>> as 2014 asking when the next
> > >> release
> > >>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
> > >>> 2011 (!).
> > >>>
> > >>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
> > >>>    1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
> > >>> release on your behalf.
> > >>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
> > >>> release this version.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks.
> > >>>
> > >>> - Josh
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> > >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > >> Spring Batch in Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
>
>


--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Josh Elser
Thanks for the great details, Bernd. Some questions/comments:

I hadn't even stumbled across VFS-570 due to its lack of fixVersion=2.1.
Are there more that need to be correctly tagged which could potentially
block the release of 2.1?

I'm not sure I follow you about the concern of using
maven-release-plugin with a multi-module maven project. This works just
fine (@see other Apache maven projects I'm involved in). If there are
demons laying in wait, I can knock them out as I find them.

Are there instructions on running clirr? I'm not familiar with the tool
(and I don't see any configuration in the top-level pom.xml).

Do you have the karma to make a 2.2 version on JIRA? That'd be a nice
help to start moving stuff out of 2.1 (as well as make sure things
sitting in Patch Available don't get forgotten). I would lean towards
the side of only putting bug-fixes into a 2.1.1 and preferring towards
any new features/changes into a 2.2 (to closer follow the definition of
semver). We presently have 3 major and 1 minor version unresolved for
fixVersion=2.1 -- these where the issues I previously referred to that I
felt OK bumping out as well.

Gary -- "BC breakage" == base-class breakage? As in: the common
base-class for all of the VFS Providers has changed (and would require
changes from anyone downstream that has built their own)?

I can try to start pounding on an initial RC in the evenings this week.
I'll be sure to reach out as I need some more help/karma ;)

Gary Gregory wrote:

> Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a package
> and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd Eckenfels<[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Josh,
>>
>> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
>> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
>>
>> https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
>>
>> As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some work to
>> get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy that you want to
>> step in as I havent had the time to do the procedure yet.
>>
>> And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be doable as
>> long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be careful about
>> the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed to other commons
>> projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag namings (the SVN is a
>> bit messy in this regard).
>>
>> My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is because
>> of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible changes. Most
>> of them only affect providers if they do not properly use abstract base
>> classes, but still the list of Clirr violations is long and developers
>> here have not yet voiced if they would accept a RC with this situation
>> (or not).
>>
>> Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
>> important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a 2.1.1
>> release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to have
>> VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be delivered with
>> 2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
>>
>> So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I hope I
>> have enough karma now).
>>
>> We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a big
>> chunk of additional work.
>>
>> Gruss
>> Bernd
>>
>>   Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
>> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> Thanks Matt and Gary.
>>>
>>> I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also applies
>>> to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically though, I am
>>> only interested in cutting a release -- if we can get a new release
>>> cut that we can use downstream, that increases the likelihood that I
>>> will have more things to contribute back :)
>>>
>>> I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
>>> any questions I have after that.
>>>
>>> - Josh
>>>
>>> Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>> It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io 2.5?"
>>>> A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions and
>>>> committed his GPG key.
>>>>
>>>> On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
>>>>> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons committer,
>>>>> so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member performing a
>>>>> release, and I think we just went through this (sorry, I'm in
>>>>> settling in a new house, not much time to dig in the ML archives).
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone recall?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
>>>>>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
>>>>>> blockers to
>>>>> me).
>>>>>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
>>>>>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
>>>>>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring me
>>>>>> to take some action. There have been emails reaching back as far
>>>>>> as 2014 asking when the next
>>>>> release
>>>>>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
>>>>>> 2011 (!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>>>>>>     1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
>>>>>> release on your behalf.
>>>>>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
>>>>>> release this version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>> Spring Batch in Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Bernd Eckenfels
Hello,

see inline.

Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:05:01 -0400
schrieb Josh Elser <[hidden email]>:

> Thanks for the great details, Bernd. Some questions/comments:
>
> I hadn't even stumbled across VFS-570 due to its lack of
> fixVersion=2.1. Are there more that need to be correctly tagged which
> could potentially block the release of 2.1?

I did not waste much time in setting/unsetting the fixversion. I
modified some severities and closed some. But the blocker bugs (the
ones I considered) are all closed.

You could do a mass change on the existing bugs, but I am sure that
causes some discussion and especially people setting the fields back to
their preferences (at least that happend a few times in the past).

> I'm not sure I follow you about the concern of using
> maven-release-plugin with a multi-module maven project. This works
> just fine (@see other Apache maven projects I'm involved in). If
> there are demons laying in wait, I can knock them out as I find them.

Well yes, I use the release plugin aswell (in fact I did a company
internal release of VFS 2.1 with it already). I think it was also used
for the 2.0 release. But there are some things (especially the tagging
of the SVN and the tag in the POM) which is currently not very
preferable in apache commons I think. I would not use it for a release
(especially as rolling back and revovering would be painful). But I
agreee with you, it should work.

> Are there instructions on running clirr? I'm not familiar with the
> tool (and I don't see any configuration in the top-level pom.xml).

You can run the "mvn -Psandbox clean site" build (possibly follwoed by
a site tst deploy). The clirr report is part of it. I had a site build
from the snapshot on people.apache.org, but I havent checked if/how the
new server would look like. So currently you need to run it locally.

> Do you have the karma to make a 2.2 version on JIRA? That'd be a nice
> help to start moving stuff out of 2.1 (as well as make sure things
> sitting in Patch Available don't get forgotten).

Yes, seems like I can do it. I created 2.2.

> I would lean towards
> the side of only putting bug-fixes into a 2.1.1 and preferring
> towards any new features/changes into a 2.2 (to closer follow the
> definition of semver). We presently have 3 major and 1 minor version
> unresolved for fixVersion=2.1 -- these where the issues I previously
> referred to that I felt OK bumping out as well.

> Gary -- "BC breakage" == base-class breakage? As in: the common
> base-class for all of the VFS Providers has changed (and would
> require changes from anyone downstream that has built their own)?

It refers to (binary) backward compatibility. For a client a new method
in an interface is a compatible change which fits into a minor update.
However when you have to implement a interface as a VFS provider you
wont be binary and source compatible. For most classes it is not a
problem since the mehtod is provided by the AbstractBaseClass for an
interface (but not all Interfaces have that and it was never mandatory
for an provider to use them).

> I can try to start pounding on an initial RC in the evenings this
> week. I'll be sure to reach out as I need some more help/karma ;)

Anything more needed from me?

Gruss
Bernd


>
> Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a
> > package and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd
> > Eckenfels<[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Josh,
> >>
> >> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
> >> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
> >>
> >> As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some
> >> work to get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy
> >> that you want to step in as I havent had the time to do the
> >> procedure yet.
> >>
> >> And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be
> >> doable as long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be
> >> careful about the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed
> >> to other commons projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag
> >> namings (the SVN is a bit messy in this regard).
> >>
> >> My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is
> >> because of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible
> >> changes. Most of them only affect providers if they do not
> >> properly use abstract base classes, but still the list of Clirr
> >> violations is long and developers here have not yet voiced if they
> >> would accept a RC with this situation (or not).
> >>
> >> Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
> >> important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a
> >> 2.1.1 release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to
> >> have VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be
> >> delivered with 2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
> >>
> >> So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I
> >> hope I have enough karma now).
> >>
> >> We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a
> >> big chunk of additional work.
> >>
> >> Gruss
> >> Bernd
> >>
> >>   Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
> >> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Matt and Gary.
> >>>
> >>> I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also
> >>> applies to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically
> >>> though, I am only interested in cutting a release -- if we can
> >>> get a new release cut that we can use downstream, that increases
> >>> the likelihood that I will have more things to contribute back :)
> >>>
> >>> I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
> >>> any questions I have after that.
> >>>
> >>> - Josh
> >>>
> >>> Matt Sicker wrote:
> >>>> It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io
> >>>> 2.5?" A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions
> >>>> and committed his GPG key.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
> >>>>> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons
> >>>>> committer, so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member
> >>>>> performing a release, and I think we just went through this
> >>>>> (sorry, I'm in settling in a new house, not much time to dig in
> >>>>> the ML archives).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does anyone recall?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gary
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
> >>>>>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
> >>>>>> blockers to
> >>>>> me).
> >>>>>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
> >>>>>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
> >>>>>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring
> >>>>>> me to take some action. There have been emails reaching back
> >>>>>> as far as 2014 asking when the next
> >>>>> release
> >>>>>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
> >>>>>> 2011 (!).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
> >>>>>>     1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
> >>>>>> release on your behalf.
> >>>>>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
> >>>>>> release this version.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Josh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> >>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> >>>>> JUnit in Action, Second
> >>>>> Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in
> >>>>> Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog:
> >>>>> http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> 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]
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Ralph Goers
As I recall, I performed the VFS 2.0 release. I did use the Maven release plugin. It has been so long that I have forgotten the details of what had to be done, but I know I ended up using it as the model for setting up Log4j 2’s build.

As I recall I would sort of test “pre-releasing” by running a build with -P apache-release as that profile enables a bunch of stuff in the ASF parent pom.

Ralph

> On Apr 26, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> see inline.
>
> Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:05:01 -0400
> schrieb Josh Elser <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>> Thanks for the great details, Bernd. Some questions/comments:
>>
>> I hadn't even stumbled across VFS-570 due to its lack of
>> fixVersion=2.1. Are there more that need to be correctly tagged which
>> could potentially block the release of 2.1?
>
> I did not waste much time in setting/unsetting the fixversion. I
> modified some severities and closed some. But the blocker bugs (the
> ones I considered) are all closed.
>
> You could do a mass change on the existing bugs, but I am sure that
> causes some discussion and especially people setting the fields back to
> their preferences (at least that happend a few times in the past).
>
>> I'm not sure I follow you about the concern of using
>> maven-release-plugin with a multi-module maven project. This works
>> just fine (@see other Apache maven projects I'm involved in). If
>> there are demons laying in wait, I can knock them out as I find them.
>
> Well yes, I use the release plugin aswell (in fact I did a company
> internal release of VFS 2.1 with it already). I think it was also used
> for the 2.0 release. But there are some things (especially the tagging
> of the SVN and the tag in the POM) which is currently not very
> preferable in apache commons I think. I would not use it for a release
> (especially as rolling back and revovering would be painful). But I
> agreee with you, it should work.
>
>> Are there instructions on running clirr? I'm not familiar with the
>> tool (and I don't see any configuration in the top-level pom.xml).
>
> You can run the "mvn -Psandbox clean site" build (possibly follwoed by
> a site tst deploy). The clirr report is part of it. I had a site build
> from the snapshot on people.apache.org <http://people.apache.org/>, but I havent checked if/how the
> new server would look like. So currently you need to run it locally.
>
>> Do you have the karma to make a 2.2 version on JIRA? That'd be a nice
>> help to start moving stuff out of 2.1 (as well as make sure things
>> sitting in Patch Available don't get forgotten).
>
> Yes, seems like I can do it. I created 2.2.
>
>> I would lean towards
>> the side of only putting bug-fixes into a 2.1.1 and preferring
>> towards any new features/changes into a 2.2 (to closer follow the
>> definition of semver). We presently have 3 major and 1 minor version
>> unresolved for fixVersion=2.1 -- these where the issues I previously
>> referred to that I felt OK bumping out as well.
>
>> Gary -- "BC breakage" == base-class breakage? As in: the common
>> base-class for all of the VFS Providers has changed (and would
>> require changes from anyone downstream that has built their own)?
>
> It refers to (binary) backward compatibility. For a client a new method
> in an interface is a compatible change which fits into a minor update.
> However when you have to implement a interface as a VFS provider you
> wont be binary and source compatible. For most classes it is not a
> problem since the mehtod is provided by the AbstractBaseClass for an
> interface (but not all Interfaces have that and it was never mandatory
> for an provider to use them).
>
>> I can try to start pounding on an initial RC in the evenings this
>> week. I'll be sure to reach out as I need some more help/karma ;)
>
> Anything more needed from me?
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
>
>>
>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a
>>> package and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd
>>> Eckenfels<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Josh,
>>>>
>>>> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
>>>> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
>>>>
>>>> As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some
>>>> work to get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy
>>>> that you want to step in as I havent had the time to do the
>>>> procedure yet.
>>>>
>>>> And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be
>>>> doable as long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be
>>>> careful about the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed
>>>> to other commons projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag
>>>> namings (the SVN is a bit messy in this regard).
>>>>
>>>> My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is
>>>> because of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible
>>>> changes. Most of them only affect providers if they do not
>>>> properly use abstract base classes, but still the list of Clirr
>>>> violations is long and developers here have not yet voiced if they
>>>> would accept a RC with this situation (or not).
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
>>>> important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a
>>>> 2.1.1 release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to
>>>> have VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be
>>>> delivered with 2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
>>>>
>>>> So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I
>>>> hope I have enough karma now).
>>>>
>>>> We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a
>>>> big chunk of additional work.
>>>>
>>>> Gruss
>>>> Bernd
>>>>
>>>>  Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
>>>> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]>:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Matt and Gary.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also
>>>>> applies to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically
>>>>> though, I am only interested in cutting a release -- if we can
>>>>> get a new release cut that we can use downstream, that increases
>>>>> the likelihood that I will have more things to contribute back :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
>>>>> any questions I have after that.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>> It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io
>>>>>> 2.5?" A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions
>>>>>> and committed his GPG key.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
>>>>>>> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons
>>>>>>> committer, so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member
>>>>>>> performing a release, and I think we just went through this
>>>>>>> (sorry, I'm in settling in a new house, not much time to dig in
>>>>>>> the ML archives).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone recall?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
>>>>>>>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
>>>>>>>> blockers to
>>>>>>> me).
>>>>>>>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
>>>>>>>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
>>>>>>>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring
>>>>>>>> me to take some action. There have been emails reaching back
>>>>>>>> as far as 2014 asking when the next
>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
>>>>>>>> 2011 (!).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>>>>>>>>    1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
>>>>>>>> release on your behalf.
>>>>>>>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
>>>>>>>> release this version.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second
>>>>>>> Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in
>>>>>>> Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog:
>>>>>>> http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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]
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

sebb-2-2
On 27 April 2016 at 05:58, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As I recall, I performed the VFS 2.0 release. I did use the Maven release plugin. It has been so long that I have forgotten the details of what had to be done, but I know I ended up using it as the model for setting up Log4j 2’s build.
>
> As I recall I would sort of test “pre-releasing” by running a build with -P apache-release as that profile enables a bunch of stuff in the ASF parent pom.

Commons Parent has a -P release profile which is different.
I'm not sure CP works all that well with apache-release which does not
support everything we expect.

You can use -Ptest-deploy to change the deploy target to target/deploy
and compare the two.

You may need to use 'mvn package deploy' rather than plain 'mvn
deploy' if the VFS pom creates any jars in the package phase.

> Ralph
>
>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> see inline.
>>
>> Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:05:01 -0400
>> schrieb Josh Elser <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>>
>>> Thanks for the great details, Bernd. Some questions/comments:
>>>
>>> I hadn't even stumbled across VFS-570 due to its lack of
>>> fixVersion=2.1. Are there more that need to be correctly tagged which
>>> could potentially block the release of 2.1?
>>
>> I did not waste much time in setting/unsetting the fixversion. I
>> modified some severities and closed some. But the blocker bugs (the
>> ones I considered) are all closed.
>>
>> You could do a mass change on the existing bugs, but I am sure that
>> causes some discussion and especially people setting the fields back to
>> their preferences (at least that happend a few times in the past).
>>
>>> I'm not sure I follow you about the concern of using
>>> maven-release-plugin with a multi-module maven project. This works
>>> just fine (@see other Apache maven projects I'm involved in). If
>>> there are demons laying in wait, I can knock them out as I find them.
>>
>> Well yes, I use the release plugin aswell (in fact I did a company
>> internal release of VFS 2.1 with it already). I think it was also used
>> for the 2.0 release. But there are some things (especially the tagging
>> of the SVN and the tag in the POM) which is currently not very
>> preferable in apache commons I think. I would not use it for a release
>> (especially as rolling back and revovering would be painful). But I
>> agreee with you, it should work.
>>
>>> Are there instructions on running clirr? I'm not familiar with the
>>> tool (and I don't see any configuration in the top-level pom.xml).
>>
>> You can run the "mvn -Psandbox clean site" build (possibly follwoed by
>> a site tst deploy). The clirr report is part of it. I had a site build
>> from the snapshot on people.apache.org <http://people.apache.org/>, but I havent checked if/how the
>> new server would look like. So currently you need to run it locally.
>>
>>> Do you have the karma to make a 2.2 version on JIRA? That'd be a nice
>>> help to start moving stuff out of 2.1 (as well as make sure things
>>> sitting in Patch Available don't get forgotten).
>>
>> Yes, seems like I can do it. I created 2.2.
>>
>>> I would lean towards
>>> the side of only putting bug-fixes into a 2.1.1 and preferring
>>> towards any new features/changes into a 2.2 (to closer follow the
>>> definition of semver). We presently have 3 major and 1 minor version
>>> unresolved for fixVersion=2.1 -- these where the issues I previously
>>> referred to that I felt OK bumping out as well.
>>
>>> Gary -- "BC breakage" == base-class breakage? As in: the common
>>> base-class for all of the VFS Providers has changed (and would
>>> require changes from anyone downstream that has built their own)?
>>
>> It refers to (binary) backward compatibility. For a client a new method
>> in an interface is a compatible change which fits into a minor update.
>> However when you have to implement a interface as a VFS provider you
>> wont be binary and source compatible. For most classes it is not a
>> problem since the mehtod is provided by the AbstractBaseClass for an
>> interface (but not all Interfaces have that and it was never mandatory
>> for an provider to use them).
>>
>>> I can try to start pounding on an initial RC in the evenings this
>>> week. I'll be sure to reach out as I need some more help/karma ;)
>>
>> Anything more needed from me?
>>
>> Gruss
>> Bernd
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>> Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a
>>>> package and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd
>>>> Eckenfels<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Josh,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
>>>>> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some
>>>>> work to get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy
>>>>> that you want to step in as I havent had the time to do the
>>>>> procedure yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be
>>>>> doable as long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be
>>>>> careful about the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed
>>>>> to other commons projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag
>>>>> namings (the SVN is a bit messy in this regard).
>>>>>
>>>>> My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is
>>>>> because of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible
>>>>> changes. Most of them only affect providers if they do not
>>>>> properly use abstract base classes, but still the list of Clirr
>>>>> violations is long and developers here have not yet voiced if they
>>>>> would accept a RC with this situation (or not).
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
>>>>> important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a
>>>>> 2.1.1 release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to
>>>>> have VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be
>>>>> delivered with 2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
>>>>>
>>>>> So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I
>>>>> hope I have enough karma now).
>>>>>
>>>>> We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a
>>>>> big chunk of additional work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gruss
>>>>> Bernd
>>>>>
>>>>>  Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
>>>>> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Matt and Gary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also
>>>>>> applies to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically
>>>>>> though, I am only interested in cutting a release -- if we can
>>>>>> get a new release cut that we can use downstream, that increases
>>>>>> the likelihood that I will have more things to contribute back :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
>>>>>> any questions I have after that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>>> It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io
>>>>>>> 2.5?" A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions
>>>>>>> and committed his GPG key.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
>>>>>>>> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons
>>>>>>>> committer, so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member
>>>>>>>> performing a release, and I think we just went through this
>>>>>>>> (sorry, I'm in settling in a new house, not much time to dig in
>>>>>>>> the ML archives).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does anyone recall?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
>>>>>>>>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
>>>>>>>>> blockers to
>>>>>>>> me).
>>>>>>>>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
>>>>>>>>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
>>>>>>>>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring
>>>>>>>>> me to take some action. There have been emails reaching back
>>>>>>>>> as far as 2014 asking when the next
>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
>>>>>>>>> 2011 (!).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>>>>>>>>>    1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
>>>>>>>>> release on your behalf.
>>>>>>>>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
>>>>>>>>> release this version.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second
>>>>>>>> Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in
>>>>>>>> Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog:
>>>>>>>> http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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]
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Josh Elser
In reply to this post by Bernd Eckenfels
> Hello,
>
> see inline.
>
> Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:05:01 -0400
> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]>:
>
>> Thanks for the great details, Bernd. Some questions/comments:
>>
>> I hadn't even stumbled across VFS-570 due to its lack of
>> fixVersion=2.1. Are there more that need to be correctly tagged which
>> could potentially block the release of 2.1?
>
> I did not waste much time in setting/unsetting the fixversion. I
> modified some severities and closed some. But the blocker bugs (the
> ones I considered) are all closed.
>
> You could do a mass change on the existing bugs, but I am sure that
> causes some discussion and especially people setting the fields back to
> their preferences (at least that happend a few times in the past).

I'll make sure to avoid the spam when closing all the issues currently
fixVersion=2.1.

>> I'm not sure I follow you about the concern of using
>> maven-release-plugin with a multi-module maven project. This works
>> just fine (@see other Apache maven projects I'm involved in). If
>> there are demons laying in wait, I can knock them out as I find them.
>
> Well yes, I use the release plugin aswell (in fact I did a company
> internal release of VFS 2.1 with it already). I think it was also used
> for the 2.0 release. But there are some things (especially the tagging
> of the SVN and the tag in the POM) which is currently not very
> preferable in apache commons I think. I would not use it for a release
> (especially as rolling back and revovering would be painful). But I
> agreee with you, it should work.
>
>> Are there instructions on running clirr? I'm not familiar with the
>> tool (and I don't see any configuration in the top-level pom.xml).
>
> You can run the "mvn -Psandbox clean site" build (possibly follwoed by
> a site tst deploy). The clirr report is part of it. I had a site build
> from the snapshot on people.apache.org, but I havent checked if/how the
> new server would look like. So currently you need to run it locally.

Thanks! Very helpful.

>> Do you have the karma to make a 2.2 version on JIRA? That'd be a nice
>> help to start moving stuff out of 2.1 (as well as make sure things
>> sitting in Patch Available don't get forgotten).
>
> Yes, seems like I can do it. I created 2.2.

Thank you!

>> I would lean towards
>> the side of only putting bug-fixes into a 2.1.1 and preferring
>> towards any new features/changes into a 2.2 (to closer follow the
>> definition of semver). We presently have 3 major and 1 minor version
>> unresolved for fixVersion=2.1 -- these where the issues I previously
>> referred to that I felt OK bumping out as well.
>
>> Gary -- "BC breakage" == base-class breakage? As in: the common
>> base-class for all of the VFS Providers has changed (and would
>> require changes from anyone downstream that has built their own)?
>
> It refers to (binary) backward compatibility. For a client a new method
> in an interface is a compatible change which fits into a minor update.
> However when you have to implement a interface as a VFS provider you
> wont be binary and source compatible. For most classes it is not a
> problem since the mehtod is provided by the AbstractBaseClass for an
> interface (but not all Interfaces have that and it was never mandatory
> for an provider to use them).

Ah ok. Thanks for the clarification on "BC".

>> I can try to start pounding on an initial RC in the evenings this
>> week. I'll be sure to reach out as I need some more help/karma ;)
>
> Anything more needed from me?

Not at the moment. I will reach out if/when I get stuck

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Josh Elser-2
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
Thanks, Sebb and Ralph.

I can dig through the parent poms. I wouldn't have initially realized
that there was a "commons" parent pom. Thanks for pointing that out.

sebb wrote:

> On 27 April 2016 at 05:58, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> As I recall, I performed the VFS 2.0 release. I did use the Maven release plugin. It has been so long that I have forgotten the details of what had to be done, but I know I ended up using it as the model for setting up Log4j 2’s build.
>>
>> As I recall I would sort of test “pre-releasing” by running a build with -P apache-release as that profile enables a bunch of stuff in the ASF parent pom.
>
> Commons Parent has a -P release profile which is different.
> I'm not sure CP works all that well with apache-release which does not
> support everything we expect.
>
> You can use -Ptest-deploy to change the deploy target to target/deploy
> and compare the two.
>
> You may need to use 'mvn package deploy' rather than plain 'mvn
> deploy' if the VFS pom creates any jars in the package phase.
>
>> Ralph
>>
>>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Bernd Eckenfels<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> see inline.
>>>
>>> Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:05:01 -0400
>>> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the great details, Bernd. Some questions/comments:
>>>>
>>>> I hadn't even stumbled across VFS-570 due to its lack of
>>>> fixVersion=2.1. Are there more that need to be correctly tagged which
>>>> could potentially block the release of 2.1?
>>> I did not waste much time in setting/unsetting the fixversion. I
>>> modified some severities and closed some. But the blocker bugs (the
>>> ones I considered) are all closed.
>>>
>>> You could do a mass change on the existing bugs, but I am sure that
>>> causes some discussion and especially people setting the fields back to
>>> their preferences (at least that happend a few times in the past).
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I follow you about the concern of using
>>>> maven-release-plugin with a multi-module maven project. This works
>>>> just fine (@see other Apache maven projects I'm involved in). If
>>>> there are demons laying in wait, I can knock them out as I find them.
>>> Well yes, I use the release plugin aswell (in fact I did a company
>>> internal release of VFS 2.1 with it already). I think it was also used
>>> for the 2.0 release. But there are some things (especially the tagging
>>> of the SVN and the tag in the POM) which is currently not very
>>> preferable in apache commons I think. I would not use it for a release
>>> (especially as rolling back and revovering would be painful). But I
>>> agreee with you, it should work.
>>>
>>>> Are there instructions on running clirr? I'm not familiar with the
>>>> tool (and I don't see any configuration in the top-level pom.xml).
>>> You can run the "mvn -Psandbox clean site" build (possibly follwoed by
>>> a site tst deploy). The clirr report is part of it. I had a site build
>>> from the snapshot on people.apache.org<http://people.apache.org/>, but I havent checked if/how the
>>> new server would look like. So currently you need to run it locally.
>>>
>>>> Do you have the karma to make a 2.2 version on JIRA? That'd be a nice
>>>> help to start moving stuff out of 2.1 (as well as make sure things
>>>> sitting in Patch Available don't get forgotten).
>>> Yes, seems like I can do it. I created 2.2.
>>>
>>>> I would lean towards
>>>> the side of only putting bug-fixes into a 2.1.1 and preferring
>>>> towards any new features/changes into a 2.2 (to closer follow the
>>>> definition of semver). We presently have 3 major and 1 minor version
>>>> unresolved for fixVersion=2.1 -- these where the issues I previously
>>>> referred to that I felt OK bumping out as well.
>>>> Gary -- "BC breakage" == base-class breakage? As in: the common
>>>> base-class for all of the VFS Providers has changed (and would
>>>> require changes from anyone downstream that has built their own)?
>>> It refers to (binary) backward compatibility. For a client a new method
>>> in an interface is a compatible change which fits into a minor update.
>>> However when you have to implement a interface as a VFS provider you
>>> wont be binary and source compatible. For most classes it is not a
>>> problem since the mehtod is provided by the AbstractBaseClass for an
>>> interface (but not all Interfaces have that and it was never mandatory
>>> for an provider to use them).
>>>
>>>> I can try to start pounding on an initial RC in the evenings this
>>>> week. I'll be sure to reach out as I need some more help/karma ;)
>>> Anything more needed from me?
>>>
>>> Gruss
>>> Bernd
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>> Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a
>>>>> package and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd
>>>>> Eckenfels<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Josh,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
>>>>>> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some
>>>>>> work to get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy
>>>>>> that you want to step in as I havent had the time to do the
>>>>>> procedure yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be
>>>>>> doable as long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be
>>>>>> careful about the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed
>>>>>> to other commons projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag
>>>>>> namings (the SVN is a bit messy in this regard).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is
>>>>>> because of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible
>>>>>> changes. Most of them only affect providers if they do not
>>>>>> properly use abstract base classes, but still the list of Clirr
>>>>>> violations is long and developers here have not yet voiced if they
>>>>>> would accept a RC with this situation (or not).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
>>>>>> important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a
>>>>>> 2.1.1 release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to
>>>>>> have VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be
>>>>>> delivered with 2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I
>>>>>> hope I have enough karma now).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a
>>>>>> big chunk of additional work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>> Bernd
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
>>>>>> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Matt and Gary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also
>>>>>>> applies to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically
>>>>>>> though, I am only interested in cutting a release -- if we can
>>>>>>> get a new release cut that we can use downstream, that increases
>>>>>>> the likelihood that I will have more things to contribute back :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
>>>>>>> any questions I have after that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>>>> It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io
>>>>>>>> 2.5?" A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions
>>>>>>>> and committed his GPG key.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
>>>>>>>>> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons
>>>>>>>>> committer, so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member
>>>>>>>>> performing a release, and I think we just went through this
>>>>>>>>> (sorry, I'm in settling in a new house, not much time to dig in
>>>>>>>>> the ML archives).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does anyone recall?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
>>>>>>>>>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
>>>>>>>>>> blockers to
>>>>>>>>> me).
>>>>>>>>>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
>>>>>>>>>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
>>>>>>>>>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring
>>>>>>>>>> me to take some action. There have been emails reaching back
>>>>>>>>>> as far as 2014 asking when the next
>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
>>>>>>>>>> 2011 (!).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>>>>>>>>>>     1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
>>>>>>>>>> release on your behalf.
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
>>>>>>>>>> release this version.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second
>>>>>>>>> Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>  Spring Batch in
>>>>>>>>> Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>  Blog:
>>>>>>>>> http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]<mailto:[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: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Ralph Goers
One thing to be wary of - Most, if not all, of the other Commons projects are not multi-module projects. I remember specifically having to do “interesting” things in the VFS pom to fix things that didn’t work correctly in commons-parent. I am sure over the course of time a lot of that has changed.  But you will probably have some trial and error, which is why I would build first by manually activating the profiles and not starting with the release plugin as it is much easier to just blow away the target directory and start over than it is to revert stuff from scm.

Ralph

> On Apr 27, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Sebb and Ralph.
>
> I can dig through the parent poms. I wouldn't have initially realized that there was a "commons" parent pom. Thanks for pointing that out.
>
> sebb wrote:
>> On 27 April 2016 at 05:58, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>> As I recall, I performed the VFS 2.0 release. I did use the Maven release plugin. It has been so long that I have forgotten the details of what had to be done, but I know I ended up using it as the model for setting up Log4j 2’s build.
>>>
>>> As I recall I would sort of test “pre-releasing” by running a build with -P apache-release as that profile enables a bunch of stuff in the ASF parent pom.
>>
>> Commons Parent has a -P release profile which is different.
>> I'm not sure CP works all that well with apache-release which does not
>> support everything we expect.
>>
>> You can use -Ptest-deploy to change the deploy target to target/deploy
>> and compare the two.
>>
>> You may need to use 'mvn package deploy' rather than plain 'mvn
>> deploy' if the VFS pom creates any jars in the package phase.
>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Bernd Eckenfels<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> see inline.
>>>>
>>>> Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:05:01 -0400
>>>> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the great details, Bernd. Some questions/comments:
>>>>>
>>>>> I hadn't even stumbled across VFS-570 due to its lack of
>>>>> fixVersion=2.1. Are there more that need to be correctly tagged which
>>>>> could potentially block the release of 2.1?
>>>> I did not waste much time in setting/unsetting the fixversion. I
>>>> modified some severities and closed some. But the blocker bugs (the
>>>> ones I considered) are all closed.
>>>>
>>>> You could do a mass change on the existing bugs, but I am sure that
>>>> causes some discussion and especially people setting the fields back to
>>>> their preferences (at least that happend a few times in the past).
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure I follow you about the concern of using
>>>>> maven-release-plugin with a multi-module maven project. This works
>>>>> just fine (@see other Apache maven projects I'm involved in). If
>>>>> there are demons laying in wait, I can knock them out as I find them.
>>>> Well yes, I use the release plugin aswell (in fact I did a company
>>>> internal release of VFS 2.1 with it already). I think it was also used
>>>> for the 2.0 release. But there are some things (especially the tagging
>>>> of the SVN and the tag in the POM) which is currently not very
>>>> preferable in apache commons I think. I would not use it for a release
>>>> (especially as rolling back and revovering would be painful). But I
>>>> agreee with you, it should work.
>>>>
>>>>> Are there instructions on running clirr? I'm not familiar with the
>>>>> tool (and I don't see any configuration in the top-level pom.xml).
>>>> You can run the "mvn -Psandbox clean site" build (possibly follwoed by
>>>> a site tst deploy). The clirr report is part of it. I had a site build
>>>> from the snapshot on people.apache.org<http://people.apache.org/>, but I havent checked if/how the
>>>> new server would look like. So currently you need to run it locally.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you have the karma to make a 2.2 version on JIRA? That'd be a nice
>>>>> help to start moving stuff out of 2.1 (as well as make sure things
>>>>> sitting in Patch Available don't get forgotten).
>>>> Yes, seems like I can do it. I created 2.2.
>>>>
>>>>> I would lean towards
>>>>> the side of only putting bug-fixes into a 2.1.1 and preferring
>>>>> towards any new features/changes into a 2.2 (to closer follow the
>>>>> definition of semver). We presently have 3 major and 1 minor version
>>>>> unresolved for fixVersion=2.1 -- these where the issues I previously
>>>>> referred to that I felt OK bumping out as well.
>>>>> Gary -- "BC breakage" == base-class breakage? As in: the common
>>>>> base-class for all of the VFS Providers has changed (and would
>>>>> require changes from anyone downstream that has built their own)?
>>>> It refers to (binary) backward compatibility. For a client a new method
>>>> in an interface is a compatible change which fits into a minor update.
>>>> However when you have to implement a interface as a VFS provider you
>>>> wont be binary and source compatible. For most classes it is not a
>>>> problem since the mehtod is provided by the AbstractBaseClass for an
>>>> interface (but not all Interfaces have that and it was never mandatory
>>>> for an provider to use them).
>>>>
>>>>> I can try to start pounding on an initial RC in the evenings this
>>>>> week. I'll be sure to reach out as I need some more help/karma ;)
>>>> Anything more needed from me?
>>>>
>>>> Gruss
>>>> Bernd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a
>>>>>> package and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd
>>>>>> Eckenfels<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Josh,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
>>>>>>> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some
>>>>>>> work to get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy
>>>>>>> that you want to step in as I havent had the time to do the
>>>>>>> procedure yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be
>>>>>>> doable as long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be
>>>>>>> careful about the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed
>>>>>>> to other commons projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag
>>>>>>> namings (the SVN is a bit messy in this regard).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is
>>>>>>> because of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible
>>>>>>> changes. Most of them only affect providers if they do not
>>>>>>> properly use abstract base classes, but still the list of Clirr
>>>>>>> violations is long and developers here have not yet voiced if they
>>>>>>> would accept a RC with this situation (or not).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
>>>>>>> important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a
>>>>>>> 2.1.1 release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to
>>>>>>> have VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be
>>>>>>> delivered with 2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I
>>>>>>> hope I have enough karma now).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a
>>>>>>> big chunk of additional work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>> Bernd
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
>>>>>>> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks Matt and Gary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also
>>>>>>>> applies to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically
>>>>>>>> though, I am only interested in cutting a release -- if we can
>>>>>>>> get a new release cut that we can use downstream, that increases
>>>>>>>> the likelihood that I will have more things to contribute back :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
>>>>>>>> any questions I have after that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io
>>>>>>>>> 2.5?" A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions
>>>>>>>>> and committed his GPG key.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
>>>>>>>>>> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons
>>>>>>>>>> committer, so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member
>>>>>>>>>> performing a release, and I think we just went through this
>>>>>>>>>> (sorry, I'm in settling in a new house, not much time to dig in
>>>>>>>>>> the ML archives).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone recall?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
>>>>>>>>>>> blockers to
>>>>>>>>>> me).
>>>>>>>>>>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
>>>>>>>>>>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
>>>>>>>>>>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring
>>>>>>>>>>> me to take some action. There have been emails reaching back
>>>>>>>>>>> as far as 2014 asking when the next
>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
>>>>>>>>>>> 2011 (!).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>>>>>>>>>>>    1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
>>>>>>>>>>> release on your behalf.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
>>>>>>>>>>> release this version.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second
>>>>>>>>>> Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>  Spring Batch in
>>>>>>>>>> Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>  Blog:
>>>>>>>>>> http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]<mailto:[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]
>
>



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Josh Elser
No worries. I am very familiar with fixing goofed-up Maven projects. The
warning is appreciated.

Ralph Goers wrote:

> One thing to be wary of - Most, if not all, of the other Commons projects are not multi-module projects. I remember specifically having to do “interesting” things in the VFS pom to fix things that didn’t work correctly in commons-parent. I am sure over the course of time a lot of that has changed.  But you will probably have some trial and error, which is why I would build first by manually activating the profiles and not starting with the release plugin as it is much easier to just blow away the target directory and start over than it is to revert stuff from scm.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Apr 27, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Sebb and Ralph.
>>
>> I can dig through the parent poms. I wouldn't have initially realized that there was a "commons" parent pom. Thanks for pointing that out.
>>
>> sebb wrote:
>>> On 27 April 2016 at 05:58, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]>   wrote:
>>>> As I recall, I performed the VFS 2.0 release. I did use the Maven release plugin. It has been so long that I have forgotten the details of what had to be done, but I know I ended up using it as the model for setting up Log4j 2’s build.
>>>>
>>>> As I recall I would sort of test “pre-releasing” by running a build with -P apache-release as that profile enables a bunch of stuff in the ASF parent pom.
>>> Commons Parent has a -P release profile which is different.
>>> I'm not sure CP works all that well with apache-release which does not
>>> support everything we expect.
>>>
>>> You can use -Ptest-deploy to change the deploy target to target/deploy
>>> and compare the two.
>>>
>>> You may need to use 'mvn package deploy' rather than plain 'mvn
>>> deploy' if the VFS pom creates any jars in the package phase.
>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Bernd Eckenfels<[hidden email]>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> see inline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:05:01 -0400
>>>>> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the great details, Bernd. Some questions/comments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hadn't even stumbled across VFS-570 due to its lack of
>>>>>> fixVersion=2.1. Are there more that need to be correctly tagged which
>>>>>> could potentially block the release of 2.1?
>>>>> I did not waste much time in setting/unsetting the fixversion. I
>>>>> modified some severities and closed some. But the blocker bugs (the
>>>>> ones I considered) are all closed.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could do a mass change on the existing bugs, but I am sure that
>>>>> causes some discussion and especially people setting the fields back to
>>>>> their preferences (at least that happend a few times in the past).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure I follow you about the concern of using
>>>>>> maven-release-plugin with a multi-module maven project. This works
>>>>>> just fine (@see other Apache maven projects I'm involved in). If
>>>>>> there are demons laying in wait, I can knock them out as I find them.
>>>>> Well yes, I use the release plugin aswell (in fact I did a company
>>>>> internal release of VFS 2.1 with it already). I think it was also used
>>>>> for the 2.0 release. But there are some things (especially the tagging
>>>>> of the SVN and the tag in the POM) which is currently not very
>>>>> preferable in apache commons I think. I would not use it for a release
>>>>> (especially as rolling back and revovering would be painful). But I
>>>>> agreee with you, it should work.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there instructions on running clirr? I'm not familiar with the
>>>>>> tool (and I don't see any configuration in the top-level pom.xml).
>>>>> You can run the "mvn -Psandbox clean site" build (possibly follwoed by
>>>>> a site tst deploy). The clirr report is part of it. I had a site build
>>>>> from the snapshot on people.apache.org<http://people.apache.org/>, but I havent checked if/how the
>>>>> new server would look like. So currently you need to run it locally.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have the karma to make a 2.2 version on JIRA? That'd be a nice
>>>>>> help to start moving stuff out of 2.1 (as well as make sure things
>>>>>> sitting in Patch Available don't get forgotten).
>>>>> Yes, seems like I can do it. I created 2.2.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would lean towards
>>>>>> the side of only putting bug-fixes into a 2.1.1 and preferring
>>>>>> towards any new features/changes into a 2.2 (to closer follow the
>>>>>> definition of semver). We presently have 3 major and 1 minor version
>>>>>> unresolved for fixVersion=2.1 -- these where the issues I previously
>>>>>> referred to that I felt OK bumping out as well.
>>>>>> Gary -- "BC breakage" == base-class breakage? As in: the common
>>>>>> base-class for all of the VFS Providers has changed (and would
>>>>>> require changes from anyone downstream that has built their own)?
>>>>> It refers to (binary) backward compatibility. For a client a new method
>>>>> in an interface is a compatible change which fits into a minor update.
>>>>> However when you have to implement a interface as a VFS provider you
>>>>> wont be binary and source compatible. For most classes it is not a
>>>>> problem since the mehtod is provided by the AbstractBaseClass for an
>>>>> interface (but not all Interfaces have that and it was never mandatory
>>>>> for an provider to use them).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can try to start pounding on an initial RC in the evenings this
>>>>>> week. I'll be sure to reach out as I need some more help/karma ;)
>>>>> Anything more needed from me?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gruss
>>>>> Bernd
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a
>>>>>>> package and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd
>>>>>>> Eckenfels<[hidden email]>   wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Josh,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
>>>>>>>> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some
>>>>>>>> work to get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy
>>>>>>>> that you want to step in as I havent had the time to do the
>>>>>>>> procedure yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be
>>>>>>>> doable as long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be
>>>>>>>> careful about the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed
>>>>>>>> to other commons projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag
>>>>>>>> namings (the SVN is a bit messy in this regard).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is
>>>>>>>> because of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible
>>>>>>>> changes. Most of them only affect providers if they do not
>>>>>>>> properly use abstract base classes, but still the list of Clirr
>>>>>>>> violations is long and developers here have not yet voiced if they
>>>>>>>> would accept a RC with this situation (or not).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
>>>>>>>> important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a
>>>>>>>> 2.1.1 release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to
>>>>>>>> have VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be
>>>>>>>> delivered with 2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I
>>>>>>>> hope I have enough karma now).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a
>>>>>>>> big chunk of additional work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>> Bernd
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
>>>>>>>> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks Matt and Gary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also
>>>>>>>>> applies to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically
>>>>>>>>> though, I am only interested in cutting a release -- if we can
>>>>>>>>> get a new release cut that we can use downstream, that increases
>>>>>>>>> the likelihood that I will have more things to contribute back :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
>>>>>>>>> any questions I have after that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io
>>>>>>>>>> 2.5?" A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions
>>>>>>>>>> and committed his GPG key.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
>>>>>>>>>>> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons
>>>>>>>>>>> committer, so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member
>>>>>>>>>>> performing a release, and I think we just went through this
>>>>>>>>>>> (sorry, I'm in settling in a new house, not much time to dig in
>>>>>>>>>>> the ML archives).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone recall?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
>>>>>>>>>>>> blockers to
>>>>>>>>>>> me).
>>>>>>>>>>>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
>>>>>>>>>>>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring
>>>>>>>>>>>> me to take some action. There have been emails reaching back
>>>>>>>>>>>> as far as 2014 asking when the next
>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2011 (!).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>     1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
>>>>>>>>>>>> release on your behalf.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
>>>>>>>>>>>> release this version.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second
>>>>>>>>>>> Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>   Spring Batch in
>>>>>>>>>>> Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>   Blog:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]<mailto:[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]
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
On 27 April 2016 at 17:18, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> One thing to be wary of - Most, if not all, of the other Commons projects are not multi-module projects. I remember specifically having to do “interesting” things in the VFS pom to fix things that didn’t work correctly in commons-parent. I am sure over the course of time a lot of that has changed.  But you will probably have some trial and error, which is why I would build first by manually activating the profiles and not starting with the release plugin as it is much easier to just blow away the target directory and start over than it is to revert stuff from scm.

I committed a couple of scripts to the Commons scripts [1] directory a
few days ago that might be useful.

create_RC_tag.sh - create an RC tag from trunk, leaving trunk alone.
No need to revert trunk if there is a problem, just bump the pom RC
version and try again.
I used this for Validator.

Nexus2DistDev.sh - download the bin and src archives from Nexus

[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/scripts

>
> Ralph
>
>> On Apr 27, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Josh Elser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Sebb and Ralph.
>>
>> I can dig through the parent poms. I wouldn't have initially realized that there was a "commons" parent pom. Thanks for pointing that out.
>>
>> sebb wrote:
>>> On 27 April 2016 at 05:58, Ralph Goers<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>> As I recall, I performed the VFS 2.0 release. I did use the Maven release plugin. It has been so long that I have forgotten the details of what had to be done, but I know I ended up using it as the model for setting up Log4j 2’s build.
>>>>
>>>> As I recall I would sort of test “pre-releasing” by running a build with -P apache-release as that profile enables a bunch of stuff in the ASF parent pom.
>>>
>>> Commons Parent has a -P release profile which is different.
>>> I'm not sure CP works all that well with apache-release which does not
>>> support everything we expect.
>>>
>>> You can use -Ptest-deploy to change the deploy target to target/deploy
>>> and compare the two.
>>>
>>> You may need to use 'mvn package deploy' rather than plain 'mvn
>>> deploy' if the VFS pom creates any jars in the package phase.
>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Bernd Eckenfels<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> see inline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:05:01 -0400
>>>>> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the great details, Bernd. Some questions/comments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hadn't even stumbled across VFS-570 due to its lack of
>>>>>> fixVersion=2.1. Are there more that need to be correctly tagged which
>>>>>> could potentially block the release of 2.1?
>>>>> I did not waste much time in setting/unsetting the fixversion. I
>>>>> modified some severities and closed some. But the blocker bugs (the
>>>>> ones I considered) are all closed.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could do a mass change on the existing bugs, but I am sure that
>>>>> causes some discussion and especially people setting the fields back to
>>>>> their preferences (at least that happend a few times in the past).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure I follow you about the concern of using
>>>>>> maven-release-plugin with a multi-module maven project. This works
>>>>>> just fine (@see other Apache maven projects I'm involved in). If
>>>>>> there are demons laying in wait, I can knock them out as I find them.
>>>>> Well yes, I use the release plugin aswell (in fact I did a company
>>>>> internal release of VFS 2.1 with it already). I think it was also used
>>>>> for the 2.0 release. But there are some things (especially the tagging
>>>>> of the SVN and the tag in the POM) which is currently not very
>>>>> preferable in apache commons I think. I would not use it for a release
>>>>> (especially as rolling back and revovering would be painful). But I
>>>>> agreee with you, it should work.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there instructions on running clirr? I'm not familiar with the
>>>>>> tool (and I don't see any configuration in the top-level pom.xml).
>>>>> You can run the "mvn -Psandbox clean site" build (possibly follwoed by
>>>>> a site tst deploy). The clirr report is part of it. I had a site build
>>>>> from the snapshot on people.apache.org<http://people.apache.org/>, but I havent checked if/how the
>>>>> new server would look like. So currently you need to run it locally.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have the karma to make a 2.2 version on JIRA? That'd be a nice
>>>>>> help to start moving stuff out of 2.1 (as well as make sure things
>>>>>> sitting in Patch Available don't get forgotten).
>>>>> Yes, seems like I can do it. I created 2.2.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would lean towards
>>>>>> the side of only putting bug-fixes into a 2.1.1 and preferring
>>>>>> towards any new features/changes into a 2.2 (to closer follow the
>>>>>> definition of semver). We presently have 3 major and 1 minor version
>>>>>> unresolved for fixVersion=2.1 -- these where the issues I previously
>>>>>> referred to that I felt OK bumping out as well.
>>>>>> Gary -- "BC breakage" == base-class breakage? As in: the common
>>>>>> base-class for all of the VFS Providers has changed (and would
>>>>>> require changes from anyone downstream that has built their own)?
>>>>> It refers to (binary) backward compatibility. For a client a new method
>>>>> in an interface is a compatible change which fits into a minor update.
>>>>> However when you have to implement a interface as a VFS provider you
>>>>> wont be binary and source compatible. For most classes it is not a
>>>>> problem since the mehtod is provided by the AbstractBaseClass for an
>>>>> interface (but not all Interfaces have that and it was never mandatory
>>>>> for an provider to use them).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can try to start pounding on an initial RC in the evenings this
>>>>>> week. I'll be sure to reach out as I need some more help/karma ;)
>>>>> Anything more needed from me?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gruss
>>>>> Bernd
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a
>>>>>>> package and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd
>>>>>>> Eckenfels<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Josh,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
>>>>>>>> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some
>>>>>>>> work to get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy
>>>>>>>> that you want to step in as I havent had the time to do the
>>>>>>>> procedure yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be
>>>>>>>> doable as long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be
>>>>>>>> careful about the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed
>>>>>>>> to other commons projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag
>>>>>>>> namings (the SVN is a bit messy in this regard).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is
>>>>>>>> because of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible
>>>>>>>> changes. Most of them only affect providers if they do not
>>>>>>>> properly use abstract base classes, but still the list of Clirr
>>>>>>>> violations is long and developers here have not yet voiced if they
>>>>>>>> would accept a RC with this situation (or not).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
>>>>>>>> important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a
>>>>>>>> 2.1.1 release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to
>>>>>>>> have VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be
>>>>>>>> delivered with 2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I
>>>>>>>> hope I have enough karma now).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a
>>>>>>>> big chunk of additional work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gruss
>>>>>>>> Bernd
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
>>>>>>>> schrieb Josh Elser<[hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks Matt and Gary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also
>>>>>>>>> applies to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically
>>>>>>>>> though, I am only interested in cutting a release -- if we can
>>>>>>>>> get a new release cut that we can use downstream, that increases
>>>>>>>>> the likelihood that I will have more things to contribute back :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
>>>>>>>>> any questions I have after that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io
>>>>>>>>>> 2.5?" A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions
>>>>>>>>>> and committed his GPG key.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
>>>>>>>>>>> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons
>>>>>>>>>>> committer, so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member
>>>>>>>>>>> performing a release, and I think we just went through this
>>>>>>>>>>> (sorry, I'm in settling in a new house, not much time to dig in
>>>>>>>>>>> the ML archives).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone recall?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
>>>>>>>>>>>> blockers to
>>>>>>>>>>> me).
>>>>>>>>>>>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
>>>>>>>>>>>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring
>>>>>>>>>>>> me to take some action. There have been emails reaching back
>>>>>>>>>>>> as far as 2014 asking when the next
>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2011 (!).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>    1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
>>>>>>>>>>>> release on your behalf.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
>>>>>>>>>>>> release this version.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second
>>>>>>>>>>> Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>  Spring Batch in
>>>>>>>>>>> Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>  Blog:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]<mailto:[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]
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

garydgregory
In reply to this post by garydgregory
Why don't we bring [vfs] 2.1 from Java 6 to 7 and update 3rd party
components?

Gary

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a package
> and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Josh,
>>
>> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
>> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
>>
>> https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
>>
>> As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some work to
>> get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy that you want to
>> step in as I havent had the time to do the procedure yet.
>>
>> And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be doable as
>> long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be careful about
>> the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed to other commons
>> projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag namings (the SVN is a
>> bit messy in this regard).
>>
>> My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is because
>> of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible changes. Most
>> of them only affect providers if they do not properly use abstract base
>> classes, but still the list of Clirr violations is long and developers
>> here have not yet voiced if they would accept a RC with this situation
>> (or not).
>>
>> Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
>> important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a 2.1.1
>> release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to have
>> VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be delivered with
>> 2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
>>
>> So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I hope I
>> have enough karma now).
>>
>> We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a big
>> chunk of additional work.
>>
>> Gruss
>> Bernd
>>
>>  Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
>> schrieb Josh Elser <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> > Thanks Matt and Gary.
>> >
>> > I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also applies
>> > to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically though, I am
>> > only interested in cutting a release -- if we can get a new release
>> > cut that we can use downstream, that increases the likelihood that I
>> > will have more things to contribute back :)
>> >
>> > I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
>> > any questions I have after that.
>> >
>> > - Josh
>> >
>> > Matt Sicker wrote:
>> > > It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io 2.5?"
>> > > A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions and
>> > > committed his GPG key.
>> > >
>> > > On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi,
>> > >>
>> > >> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
>> > >> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>> > >>
>> > >> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons committer,
>> > >> so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>> > >>
>> > >> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member performing a
>> > >> release, and I think we just went through this (sorry, I'm in
>> > >> settling in a new house, not much time to dig in the ML archives).
>> > >>
>> > >> Does anyone recall?
>> > >>
>> > >> Gary
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi all,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
>> > >>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
>> > >>> blockers to
>> > >> me).
>> > >>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
>> > >>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
>> > >>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring me
>> > >>> to take some action. There have been emails reaching back as far
>> > >>> as 2014 asking when the next
>> > >> release
>> > >>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
>> > >>> 2011 (!).
>> > >>>
>> > >>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>> > >>>    1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
>> > >>> release on your behalf.
>> > >>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
>> > >>> release this version.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> - Josh
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>> > >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> > >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> > >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> > >> Spring Batch in Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> > >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> > >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> > >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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]
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>



--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Josh Elser
Because we should make a release of the code that's ready to go now :)

I think it's fine to drop 1.6 support, but if it's going to involve more
code changes, I don't think it should happen for 2.1. If it's just a
matter of tweaking the compiler-plugin, that's fine.

I hope to look at this all in earnest tonight.

Gary Gregory wrote:

> Why don't we bring [vfs] 2.1 from Java 6 to 7 and update 3rd party
> components?
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a
>     package and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
>
>     Gary
>
>     On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd Eckenfels
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>         Hello Josh,
>
>         I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
>         volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
>
>         https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
>
>         As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some
>         work to
>         get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy that you
>         want to
>         step in as I havent had the time to do the procedure yet.
>
>         And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be
>         doable as
>         long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be careful
>         about
>         the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed to other commons
>         projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag namings (the
>         SVN is a
>         bit messy in this regard).
>
>         My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is
>         because
>         of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible changes.
>         Most
>         of them only affect providers if they do not properly use
>         abstract base
>         classes, but still the list of Clirr violations is long and
>         developers
>         here have not yet voiced if they would accept a RC with this
>         situation
>         (or not).
>
>         Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
>         important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a 2.1.1
>         release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to have
>         VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be delivered with
>         2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
>
>         So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I
>         hope I
>         have enough karma now).
>
>         We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open
>         a big
>         chunk of additional work.
>
>         Gruss
>         Bernd
>
>           Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
>         schrieb Josh Elser <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>          > Thanks Matt and Gary.
>          >
>          > I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also
>         applies
>          > to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically
>         though, I am
>          > only interested in cutting a release -- if we can get a new
>         release
>          > cut that we can use downstream, that increases the likelihood
>         that I
>          > will have more things to contribute back :)
>          >
>          > I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll
>         with
>          > any questions I have after that.
>          >
>          > - Josh
>          >
>          > Matt Sicker wrote:
>          > > It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to
>         commons-io 2.5?"
>          > > A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions and
>          > > committed his GPG key.
>          > >
>          > > On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary
>         Gregory<[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>          > > wrote:
>          > >
>          > >> Hi,
>          > >>
>          > >> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can
>         release
>          > >> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>          > >>
>          > >> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons
>         committer,
>          > >> so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>          > >>
>          > >> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member
>         performing a
>          > >> release, and I think we just went through this (sorry, I'm in
>          > >> settling in a new house, not much time to dig in the ML
>         archives).
>          > >>
>          > >> Does anyone recall?
>          > >>
>          > >> Gary
>          > >>
>          > >>
>          > >>
>          > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh
>         Elser<[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>          > >> wrote:
>          > >>
>          > >>> Hi all,
>          > >>>
>          > >>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in
>         commons-vfs2
>          > >>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
>          > >>> blockers to
>          > >> me).
>          > >>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been
>         a big
>          > >>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
>          > >>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is
>         spurring me
>          > >>> to take some action. There have been emails reaching back
>         as far
>          > >>> as 2014 asking when the next
>          > >> release
>          > >>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was
>         released in
>          > >>> 2011 (!).
>          > >>>
>          > >>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>          > >>>
>          > >>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer
>         as RM.
>          > >>>    1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
>          > >>> release on your behalf.
>          > >>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks
>         exist to
>          > >>> release this version.
>          > >>>
>          > >>> Thanks.
>          > >>>
>          > >>> - Josh
>          > >>>
>          > >>>
>          > >>>
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>          > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>         [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>          > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>          > >>>
>          > >>>
>          > >>
>          > >> --
>          > >> E-Mail: [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]> | [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>          > >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>          > >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>          > >> JUnit in Action, Second
>         Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>          > >> Spring Batch in Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>          > >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>          > >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>          > >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>          > >>
>          > >
>          > >
>          > >
>          >
>          >
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>          > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>          > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>          >
>
>
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>         To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     E-Mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> |
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>     <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>     JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>     Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>     Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>     <http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
>     Home: http://garygregory.com/
>     Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> |
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com <http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Bernd Eckenfels
In reply to this post by garydgregory
The components have been updated multiple times. The more we modernize it (including new java version) the less useful the release will be as a drop-in replacement for 2.0. I had the impression some bug reporters would like that. (Just for the record I wondered about having an additional a 2.0.1. Branch but I doubt we find resources for that painful task). It would allow us to release 3.0 (with java 8)...

If we try to stick to 2.1 I would not do (more) dependency upgrades and Java 7 later (having said that we already switched to java 6 but that offers way more important features than we wohld use in 7 (what java 7 feature you would want to use?)

But I am fine with both

--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
Cc: Josh Elser <[hidden email]>
Sent: Fr., 29 Apr. 2016 0:16
Subject: Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Why don't we bring [vfs] 2.1 from Java 6 to 7 and update 3rd party
components?

Gary

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a package
> and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Josh,
>>
>> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
>> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
>>
>> https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
>>
>> As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some work to
>> get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy that you want to
>> step in as I havent had the time to do the procedure yet.
>>
>> And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be doable as
>> long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be careful about
>> the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed to other commons
>> projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag namings (the SVN is a
>> bit messy in this regard).
>>
>> My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is because
>> of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible changes. Most
>> of them only affect providers if they do not properly use abstract base
>> classes, but still the list of Clirr violations is long and developers
>> here have not yet voiced if they would accept a RC with this situation
>> (or not).
>>
>> Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
>> important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a 2.1.1
>> release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to have
>> VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be delivered with
>> 2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
>>
>> So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I hope I
>> have enough karma now).
>>
>> We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a big
>> chunk of additional work.
>>
>> Gruss
>> Bernd
>>
>>  Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
>> schrieb Josh Elser <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> > Thanks Matt and Gary.
>> >
>> > I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also applies
>> > to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically though, I am
>> > only interested in cutting a release -- if we can get a new release
>> > cut that we can use downstream, that increases the likelihood that I
>> > will have more things to contribute back :)
>> >
>> > I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
>> > any questions I have after that.
>> >
>> > - Josh
>> >
>> > Matt Sicker wrote:
>> > > It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io 2.5?"
>> > > A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions and
>> > > committed his GPG key.
>> > >
>> > > On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi,
>> > >>
>> > >> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
>> > >> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>> > >>
>> > >> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons committer,
>> > >> so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>> > >>
>> > >> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member performing a
>> > >> release, and I think we just went through this (sorry, I'm in
>> > >> settling in a new house, not much time to dig in the ML archives).
>> > >>
>> > >> Does anyone recall?
>> > >>
>> > >> Gary
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi all,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
>> > >>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
>> > >>> blockers to
>> > >> me).
>> > >>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
>> > >>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
>> > >>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring me
>> > >>> to take some action. There have been emails reaching back as far
>> > >>> as 2014 asking when the next
>> > >> release
>> > >>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
>> > >>> 2011 (!).
>> > >>>
>> > >>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>> > >>>    1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
>> > >>> release on your behalf.
>> > >>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
>> > >>> release this version.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> - Josh
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>> > >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> > >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> > >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> > >> Spring Batch in Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> > >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> > >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> > >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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]
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>



--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan

Ralph Goers
Not to derail the conversation, but my opinion is (and has been for several years) that VFS 3.0 should be modified to use java.nio.file.FileSystem and FileStore. I don’t think it makes much sense for VFS to have its own constructs any more.

Ralph

> On Apr 28, 2016, at 3:41 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> The components have been updated multiple times. The more we modernize it (including new java version) the less useful the release will be as a drop-in replacement for 2.0. I had the impression some bug reporters would like that. (Just for the record I wondered about having an additional a 2.0.1. Branch but I doubt we find resources for that painful task). It would allow us to release 3.0 (with java 8)...
>
> If we try to stick to 2.1 I would not do (more) dependency upgrades and Java 7 later (having said that we already switched to java 6 but that offers way more important features than we wohld use in 7 (what java 7 feature you would want to use?)
>
> But I am fine with both
>
> --
> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Josh Elser <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Fr., 29 Apr. 2016 0:16
> Subject: Re: [VFS] 2.1 Release Plan
>
> Why don't we bring [vfs] 2.1 from Java 6 to 7 and update 3rd party
> components?
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, there is a BC breakage for providers, is that grounds for a package
>> and Maven coordinate rename to vfs3?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Josh,
>>>
>>> I think a VFS 2.1 release would be cool and it is good that you
>>> volunteer, so I dont object. My latest todo list is here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.apache.org/commons/VfsReleaseState
>>>
>>> As you can see, I did plan to do the release and did quite some work to
>>> get VFS into a releaseable state. But I am quite happy that you want to
>>> step in as I havent had the time to do the procedure yet.
>>>
>>> And this is not the actual release procedure (which should be doable as
>>> long as you do not try to use the release-plugin and be careful about
>>> the multi-module+sandbox nature of VFS (as opposed to other commons
>>> projects)). Also be carefull about branch and tag namings (the SVN is a
>>> bit messy in this regard).
>>>
>>> My main concern I am afraid I would not have enough capacity is because
>>> of the Clirr report and a lot of partially incompatible changes. Most
>>> of them only affect providers if they do not properly use abstract base
>>> classes, but still the list of Clirr violations is long and developers
>>> here have not yet voiced if they would accept a RC with this situation
>>> (or not).
>>>
>>> Anyway, I do agree that the current critical and blocker bugs are
>>> important but should not stop the 2.1 release (especially if a 2.1.1
>>> release aferwards is much faster to do.) It would be cool to have
>>> VFS-570 (write suport for VFS, but even that could be delivered with
>>> 2.1.1 - it might annoy the HDFS folks a bit)
>>>
>>> So I can help you in case you need me to sponsor some changes (I hope I
>>> have enough karma now).
>>>
>>> We could even make a joined RC1, I am just not sure it wont open a big
>>> chunk of additional work.
>>>
>>> Gruss
>>> Bernd
>>>
>>> Am Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:40:01 -0400
>>> schrieb Josh Elser <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Matt and Gary.
>>>>
>>>> I do recall seeing the asf-wide note that my commit-bit also applies
>>>> to commons-*. Thanks for bringing that up. Specifically though, I am
>>>> only interested in cutting a release -- if we can get a new release
>>>> cut that we can use downstream, that increases the likelihood that I
>>>> will have more things to contribute back :)
>>>>
>>>> I'll pull up the thread in the archives and get back to ya'll with
>>>> any questions I have after that.
>>>>
>>>> - Josh
>>>>
>>>> Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>> It's from the thread called "Whatever happened to commons-io 2.5?"
>>>>> A few people stepped up to give the necessary permissions and
>>>>> committed his GPG key.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25 April 2016 at 17:10, Gary Gregory<[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed, VFS 2.1 has been too long in the making. We can release
>>>>>> ASAP without fixing more bugs IMO. RERO and all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an Apache committer, your are also an Apache Commons committer,
>>>>>> so feel free to create JIRAs, fix bugs and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There might be some karma issues with a non-PMC member performing a
>>>>>> release, and I think we just went through this (sorry, I'm in
>>>>>> settling in a new house, not much time to dig in the ML archives).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone recall?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Josh Elser<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are presently 171 resolved issues sitting in commons-vfs2
>>>>>>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT, with 4 outstanding (none of which look like
>>>>>>> blockers to
>>>>>> me).
>>>>>>> The lack of any release of commons-vfs2 in years has been a big
>>>>>>> problem downstream. This past weekend, I was again annoyed by
>>>>>>> bugs that have been fixed (but not release) which is spurring me
>>>>>>> to take some action. There have been emails reaching back as far
>>>>>>> as 2014 asking when the next
>>>>>> release
>>>>>>> might be, not to mention the fact that vfs-2.0 was released in
>>>>>>> 2011 (!).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> History aside, I'm reaching out today to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) See if anyone on the PMC has the cycles to volunteer as RM.
>>>>>>>   1a) If not, how can you empower me (or others) to make the
>>>>>>> release on your behalf.
>>>>>>> 2) Understand, specifically, what (if any) roadblocks exist to
>>>>>>> release this version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action<http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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