perhaps, we can release smb provider as is at commons-vfs and mark it as experimental? I see a number of apache project doing that.
-D On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I took a closer look at writing unit test case for vfs-cifs and came > to a conclusion that the test cases are tough to develop since there > is no available embedded cifs server available ( note that the current > test cases for other provider heavily depends on embedded server like > ftp, sftp, webdav, etc ). And mocking the testcase up is not that > worth. > > So I would like to propose to release cifs provider as a beta together > with vfs-maven-plugin and have users to test it out. My company is > using intensively in house and about the bring it to full production ( > there fore I need to release vfs-maven-plugin at MOJO's codehaus soon > ) > > Any objection for me release it as propose using the same java package > name( org.apache.commons.vfs.... ) at codehaus? > > Thanks > > -D > > Note I do have test case for cift using provided example pom > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 4:49 AM > Subject: Re: Promote vfs-cift out of sandbox? > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have from now to Octorber to either: >> >> 1. Implement test requirement to graduate vfs-cifs out of sandbox at >> Apache common >> >> 2. Release it as a alpha/beta at Codehaus together with vfs-maven-plugin >> >> 3. Release to our internal repo. >> >> The prefer one is 1 >> > > So do I :) > > >> >> What is VFS 2.1 schedule? >> > > I would like to push out a 2.1 sooner rather than later. I still see some > internal clean ups I'd like to do. So it might be out in a month or two. Or > not, it depends on my schedule, priorities and feedback I get once I start > cutting release candidates. > > It's possible that by October, VFS will be on 2.2, 2.3 or greater. > > Gary > > >> Thanks >> >> -Dan >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Dan? What are your plans or intentions here? >> > >> > Thank you, >> > Gary >> > >> > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> > >> >> On Jul 19, 2012, at 12:11, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:38 AM, sebb wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Can the above be read as follows for VFS and JCIFS: you cannot >> copy >> >> the >> >> >>>>> JCIFS jar into VFS (which we do not) but the VFS POM can point to >> it >> >> (which >> >> >>>>> we do). >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> The above document is only proposed, not actual policy. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> The following is the resolved list of questions: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> In particular: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> "Will the majority of users want to use my product without adding >> the >> >> >>>> optional components? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I do not see how this helps. It's yes or no: Can the VFS POM point >> to >> >> >>> a set of artifacts that are LGPL? >> >> >> >> >> >> Whether the answer is yes or no depends on the answer to the above >> >> question. >> >> > >> >> > There are only a few file systems in VFS that should be considered >> >> required. All the ones that require the user to include a third-party >> jar - >> >> even if it is Jackrabbit's - are optional. We could easily include file >> >> systems that have dependencies on artifacts that are licensed under the >> >> LGPL or similar licenses (although I would still shy away from GPL'd >> works >> >> because of the FSF's interpretation of their license). >> >> > >> >> > The biggest issue I see with the stuff in the sandbox isn't licensing >> >> but if anyone will support it. >> >> >> >> Ok, so the short answer is yes, we can move to trunk. The issue is >> >> whether someone can bring the code up to par. That person sounds like >> >> the author of the original post. After that, it's up to the >> >> committers, like me, to keep up. >> >> >> >> Gary >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Ralph >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >> > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 >> > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK >> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> > Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
