Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Am Tue, 03 May 2016 21:47:43 -0400
schrieb Josh Elser:
See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that
the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a
manner that is allowed for ASF projects.
Which is why it is not built or shipp
Am Tue, 03 May 2016 21:47:43 -0400
schrieb Josh Elser :
> See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that
> the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a
> manner that is allowed for ASF projects.
Which is why it is not built or shipped by default and
I know that RM'ing can be a PITA. I'm grateful you are willing to put the
time in :-)
Gary
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> Don't thank me yet, we haven't gotten the release out ;)
>
>
> Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Thanks for RM'ing Josh! We're long overdue for a VFS release.
>>
Don't thank me yet, we haven't gotten the release out ;)
Gary Gregory wrote:
Thanks for RM'ing Josh! We're long overdue for a VFS release.
Gary
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
This vote fails with one -1 and nothing else.
Going to be trying to roll an rc1 with the feedbac
Thanks for RM'ing Josh! We're long overdue for a VFS release.
Gary
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> This vote fails with one -1 and nothing else.
>
> Going to be trying to roll an rc1 with the feedback given so far.
>
> Josh Elser wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Please consider the fo
This vote fails with one -1 and nothing else.
Going to be trying to roll an rc1 with the feedback given so far.
Josh Elser wrote:
All,
Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
Maven repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons
Bernd--
See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that
the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a
manner that is allowed for ASF projects.
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Hello,
the sandbox works perfectly fine for me. Why do you think it is not
ready f
sebb wrote:
> mvn site:stage is used expressly for this purpose. Maven has no problems
> with properly constructed multi-module projects -- it's a fallacy that Maven
> cannot handle multi-module projects well.
[Since Maven knows it is a multi-module project it should not need a
different com
Hello,
the sandbox works perfectly fine for me. Why do you think it is not
ready for release (beside we do not want to?)
I dont think we should burden such structural and long standing changes
onto a voluntary release manager given the 2.0 had the same structure.
Gruss
Bernd
Am Tue, 3 May 2016
On 3 May 2016 at 18:25, Josh Elser wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>> Ideally the duplicate archives should be dropped, but that is not a
>> blocker, just a nuisance when reviewing.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Yeah, I'll try to figure out what's going on with that when I roll
>>> > rc1. I'm
>>> >
sebb wrote:
>> Ideally the duplicate archives should be dropped, but that is not a
>> blocker, just a nuisance when reviewing.
>
>
> Yeah, I'll try to figure out what's going on with that when I roll rc1. I'm
> not sure since it's not pulling directly from the apache.pom (I'm not sure
> wha
sebb wrote:
+1 along with someone to own this and do the proper diligence as a PMC
> member to make sure that we're violating policy.
It would be easy to_ensure_ a violation ... !
Since sandbox is not ready for release, for the purpose of getting a
VFS release out it should be moved to a bra
On 3 May 2016 at 18:08, Josh Elser wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> > Sebb -- would addressing these points in the release notes cause you
>>> > to
>>> > change your -1 to a +1? I'd like to make all the changes I can ASAP
>>> > and roll
>>> > the next RC. Because I haven't said it explicitly -- tha
On 3 May 2016 at 18:04, Josh Elser wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser wrote:
>>>
>>> Binaries are not an official release anyways.
>>
>>
>> But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible
>> with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them)
sebb wrote:
> Sebb -- would addressing these points in the release notes cause you to
> change your -1 to a +1? I'd like to make all the changes I can ASAP and roll
> the next RC. Because I haven't said it explicitly -- thanks for taking the
> time to give all of the feedback that you have al
sebb wrote:
On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser wrote:
Binaries are not an official release anyways.
But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible
with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them) that the
software comes under AL 2.0.
I didn't mean to imply tha
On 3 May 2016 at 01:37, Josh Elser wrote:
> Josh Elser wrote:
>>
>> sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser wrote:
> Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility.
>
> I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not
On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser wrote:
> Binaries are not an official release anyways.
But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible
with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them) that the
software comes under AL 2.0.
Depending on incompatible software is a d
ist
> Sent: Di., 03 Mai 2016 2:33
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
>
> I had just tried to make sure it was included in the build because I
> assumed that it was meant to be released :)
>
> It's becoming apparent that was inaccurate.
>
> Ralph Goers
Binaries are not an official release anyways.
Even so, that seems like a *very* scary thing to even have this code
checked into the repository if it depends on incompatibly-licensed
software. Am I misunderstanding this?
e...@zusammenkunft.net wrote:
Hello,
Agree, the sandbox profile should
Josh Elser wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser wrote:
> Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility.
>
> I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not
worth
> changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are
not
-
From: Josh Elser
To: Commons Developers List
Sent: Di., 03 Mai 2016 2:33
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
I had just tried to make sure it was included in the build because I
assumed that it was meant to be released :)
It's becoming apparent that was inaccurate.
Ralph Goers
I had just tried to make sure it was included in the build because I
assumed that it was meant to be released :)
It's becoming apparent that was inaccurate.
Ralph Goers wrote:
As I recall 2.0 did not really include sandbox as part of the release because
we didn’t want to officially support th
As I recall 2.0 did not really include sandbox as part of the release because
we didn’t want to officially support the sandbox components. They might have
been included in the source distribution though. But these emails make it sound
like it is exactly the opposite of what I would have expected
sebb wrote:
http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
mentions Release Notes but the link points to
https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/RELEASE_NOTES.txt
which of course is for2.0.
It would be helpful to use the current release notes on the site.
Ok, I'll have
sebb wrote:
On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser wrote:
> Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility.
>
> I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not worth
> changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are not
> acceptable,
On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser wrote:
> Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility.
>
> I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not worth
> changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are not
> acceptable, please start a disc
http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html
mentions Release Notes but the link points to
https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/RELEASE_NOTES.txt
which of course is for 2.0.
It would be helpful to use the current release notes on the site.
The new RN at
https://dist.
Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility.
I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not worth
changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are not
acceptable, please start a discussion about this so you can come to
consensus o
sebb wrote:
The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end
users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so
should not be the primary download page.
Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven
release artifacts:
commons-vfs-2.1-bi
Josh Elser wrote:
Sebb wrote:
> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1
(rc0).
>
> Maven repository:
>
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
URL is transitory.
(So sorry, fingers sent too quick)
commons-vfs-2.1-bin.tar.gz:
MD5 fdaad280f3d3c592df048a58bfa8debd
SHA1 edfa8ac8c31e2e4b88898ac2418f9e7a7fe34324
commons-vfs-2.1-bin.zip:
MD5 951448d632ff37363c4bd0dcad3a887e
SHA1 2fd9262d349f6d62eb34912a7d56d406b7655568
My GPG key is 4677D66C
Josh Elser wrote:
Forgot to include xsum/sig info:
commons-vfs-2.1-src.tar.gz:
MD5 f768cf5f2d00cfa58b70d221054ca1c9
SHA1 d5a53ecf575e961b2e6b472e8bf5b013b33bfa78
commons-vfs-2.1-src.zip:
MD5 2eb6a10883b77ce137a391a7dd341120
SHA1 f831eb7cb62df295ef8b1a090e209550c6ea5c35
Josh Elser wrote:
All,
Please consider th
Hrm, so I either botched the build command (highly possible) or the
source archive is screwed up and doesn't include it.
Can someone please enlighten me as to whether or not the sandbox should
actually be included?
sebb wrote:
Also the sandbox tree is missing from the source archives.
Yet th
Sebb -- did you actually read the changes?
You should note that those are all method additions which we already
decided were allowed
sebb wrote:
I have now found the Clirr Report at
http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html
There are still some br
Sebb wrote:
> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
>
> Maven repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
URL is transitory.
The hashes allow o
I have now found the Clirr Report at
http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html
There are still some breaking changes that affect BC as far as I can
tell, so that means I need to vote
-1
On 2 May 2016 at 11:31, sebb wrote:
> Also the sandbox tree is
Also the sandbox tree is missing from the source archives.
Yet there are sandbox jars in Nexus.
We cannot publish source to Maven that is not also in the source artifacts.
If the sandbox code is not intended to be released, it should be moved
from trunk.
On 2 May 2016 at 11:16, sebb wrote:
> Al
Also please include a link to the KEYS file, i.e.
https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
Note that the standard download page is
http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/download_vfs.html
I think that should be in the site menu.
The "Download and Build" page is more suitable fo
On 2 May 2016 at 05:28, Josh Elser wrote:
> All,
>
> Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
>
> Maven repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above
URL
All,
Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0).
Maven repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161
Artifacts:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source}
Staged site:
http://home.apache.org/~els
41 matches
Mail list logo
