Hi Sebb
A couple of things:
1. Which tests are you referring to in your first point below?
2. Does the assumption have anything to do with the lenientFutureDates
flag in FTPTimestampParserImpl?
Rory
sebb wrote:
I've committed updates to the FTPTimestampParserImplTest classes in
trunk and NET_2_0.
The 2 additional tests for Feb 29 fail on Java 1.3/1.4.
Both trunk (Java 1.3/1.4) and NET_2_0 (Java 1.5+) now fail on short
dates that fall in a different year from current (previous or next).
Some of the existing tests assume that dates cannot be more than 1
hour in the future - IMO this is wrong - so I propose to drop these
tests.
I'm working on a patch which I'll add as a patch to NET-188.
On 09/03/2008, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure, you can just add them directly yourself if you like.
Rory
The *nix short date formatting fixes don't currently have any tests,
at least when I last checked.
I think these need to be added first.
I can add some later today if that's OK with you?
Or do you want them done as patches via Jira?
On 09/03/2008, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi James
>
> Yes, I'm going to cut new RCs for 1.5 and 2.0.
>
> Thanks
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> James Carman wrote:
> > On 3/8/08, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I've taken into account the suggestions proposed by various people wrt
> >> the TFTP server classes and accordingly made some changes. Thanks for
> >> the feedback.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > So, does that mean you're cutting (or have already done so) a new
> > release candidate for us to vote on?
> >
> >
> >> Rory
> >>
> >>
> >> sebb wrote:
> >> > On 07/03/2008, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 8:04 AM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >> > On 3/2/08, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > > Hi
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > This is a release vote for Commons Net 1.5. This release
fixes a few
> >> >> > > issues with TFTP errors, threading hangs, and a leap year
date parsing bug.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The RC deployment is here:
> >> >> > > http://people.apache.org/~rwinston/commons-net-1.5.0/site/
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Binaries:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
http://people.apache.org/~rwinston/commons-net-1.5.0/commons-net-1.5.0-SNAPSHOT-bin.zip
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Source:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
http://people.apache.org/~rwinston/commons-net-1.5.0/commons-net-1.5.0-SNAPSHOT-src.tar.gz
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Javadocs:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
http://people.apache.org/~rwinston/commons-net-1.5.0/site/apidocs/index.html
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > SVN tag:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_1_5_0/
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Here's my +1 in advance.
> >> >> > > Cheers
> >> >> > > Rory
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I just wanted to post my official -1 vote. I feel that the
> >> >> > org.apache.commons.net.tftp.TFTPServer class is outside the
scope of
> >> >> > Commons Net. I have no problem with it being in the test
classes, as
> >> >> > suggested, though.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Not a problem for me. +1 to including the server class.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not big codewise, and is not that far from Net's scope or
Commons scope.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > But it's not in scope (yet?)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Two proviso's:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) The main method in TFTPServer should be removed.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> 2) If we get lots of embedded server components, then we should
> >> >> rethink this, but I can see that the 'simple embedded server space'
is
> >> >> pretty small. Might want to use a different package to allow it to
> >> >> more easily be split out. org.apache.commons.net.server.* or
> >> >> something. Then people can send in their dumb EchoServer
> >> >> implementations :)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > +1 to changing package name.
> >> >
> >> > I still think it should be in the test tree; AFAICS the purpose of the
> >> > code contribution was to enable the TFTP Client to be tested.
> >> >
> >> > If Commons starts getting other simple server implementations then
> >> > these ought to be part of a different project with a scope of
> >> > Testing/Mocking or some such. Maybe not even in Commons.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Hen
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
