Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On 13 March 2015 at 17:40, Sarah Murray wrote: > It's absurd to have a library where no released version works on any > supported version of Java. End of story Well, there are 2 solutions to that. 1) BCEL is abandoned/retired. 2) BCEL is updated to support recent versions of Java. > On Wed, Mar

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

It's absurd to have a library where no released version works on any supported version of Java. End of story On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:04 PM, sebb wrote: > On 12 March 2015 at 01:25, Niall Pemberton > wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:42 PM, sarahkm1972 > wrote: > > > >> +100 to RERO. +1000

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On 12 March 2015 at 01:25, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:42 PM, sarahkm1972 wrote: > >> +100 to RERO. +1000 to release before we're all dead. It's been a decade >> people. Just cut a release already. You can always cut another one later. >> Stop with the excuses >> >> Whatever

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:42 PM, sarahkm1972 wrote: > +100 to RERO. +1000 to release before we're all dead. It's been a decade > people. Just cut a release already. You can always cut another one later. > Stop with the excuses > > Whatever you want to call it - alpha, beta, RC, final, anything. Ja

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Thanks for taking the time to review those patches Mark. I guarantee you that Mark and Jerome do not know that their patches are considered difficult to review in a timely manner. The last comment on all of their patches is from them and they're waiting for a response. If the issues are considered

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On 06/03/2015 21:05, Sarah Murray wrote: >- 187 - has a test >case. no committer review for 2 months Neither has anyone else reviewed it. It isn't just committers that can review patches. I've got the necessary commit karma and after looking

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Sorry for the frustration I expressed. It was probably not the most constructive way to voice my opinion. A well described bug with a patch and a test case tends to get committed very > quickly. I'm not sure you've looked at the issue tracker lately. This really isn't true as far as I can see, w

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

All, This is a community of volunteers. If you want to see something happen, demanding that other people do something is not the way to achieve your aims. At best your demands will have no impact. At worst, they will irritate folks that might have otherwise done the very thing you want to see happ

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

+100 to RERO. +1000 to release before we're all dead. It's been a decade people. Just cut a release already. You can always cut another one later. Stop with the excuses Whatever you want to call it - alpha, beta, RC, final, anything. Java 8 users are left in a lurch. Compiling libraries is not a r

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

ndEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4673398&i=0> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > > > > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4673398&i=1> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

n email] > > > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4673398&i=1> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the > discussion > > &g

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

t;http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4673398&i=1> > > > > > > > > -- > > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > > below: > > > > > http://apache-commons.680414.n4.na

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

: [hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4673398&i=1> > > > > -- > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > > http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-BCEL-6-0-based-on-RC3-tp4667129p46733

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 03/03/2015 00:03, Gary Gregory a écrit : > We could release an Alpha to make it clear that we are still working on > possibly important changes. But we would have to upload it to Maven Central to make it really useful. If there is a consensus to do that I'm ok to cut a release soon. Emmanuel B

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

il: [hidden email] > > > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4673392&i=1> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the > discussio

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

mail] > > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4673392&i=0> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4673392&i=1> > > > > > > > > ---------- &g

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 02/03/2015 23:21, ianmca86 a écrit : > i don't like the policy of changing the package name to make a tiny change > to binary compatibility. it makes it impossible to release often And users don't like having deep conflicting libraries in their dependency tree :) > but we're getting way off b

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

ly to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > > http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-BCEL-6-0-based-on-RC3-tp4667129p4673392.html > To unsubscribe from [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3, click here > <http://apache-commons.6804

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 02/03/2015 22:33, Gary Gregory a écrit : > > I'm all for RERO if the release manager is willing. > > I tend to agree with RERO, but if the API is not ready I don't think > it's right to rush into a release, and the deeper I dig into BCEL

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 02/03/2015 22:33, Gary Gregory a écrit : > I'm all for RERO if the release manager is willing. I tend to agree with RERO, but if the API is not ready I don't think it's right to rush into a release, and the deeper I dig into BCEL the more I'm bothered by the issues I find. Once BCEL is back in

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

://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 > > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

-- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4673389&i=7> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, sebb wrote: > On 2 March 2015 at 21:33, Gary Gregory wrote: > > I'm all for RERO if the release manager is willing. > > RM willingness is only part of it. > > RERO is all very well if: > - the API is stable; or > - frequent changes of package name/Maven coords are

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On 2 March 2015 at 21:33, Gary Gregory wrote: > I'm all for RERO if the release manager is willing. RM willingness is only part of it. RERO is all very well if: - the API is stable; or - frequent changes of package name/Maven coords are acceptable to consumers; or - one does not care about binar

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

I'm all for RERO if the release manager is willing. Gary On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:37 PM, ianmca86 wrote: > +1 > > no one has really answered ben's question yet. if bcel 209 > is committed could we > cut > a release? it seems like everyone is

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

+1 no one has really answered ben's question yet. if bcel 209 is committed could we cut a release? it seems like everyone is okay with the general approach taken there my company also is mandating all projects move to java 8 this month since jav

Re: Semantic versioning (was: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3)

On 20 February 2015 at 01:23, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > On 19 February 2015 at 18:47, sebb wrote: >> Not necessarily, my example was about requiring a major bump in JVM version. >> Still binary compatible, but might require users to upgrade their host JVM. >> Therefore it may be worth flagging

Semantic versioning (was: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3)

On 19 February 2015 at 18:47, sebb wrote: > Not necessarily, my example was about requiring a major bump in JVM version. > Still binary compatible, but might require users to upgrade their host JVM. > Therefore it may be worth flagging the change to end-users via the > version number. Agreed that

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Is BCEL-209 the only pending issue that would break binary compatibility? Perhaps we could prioritize the issues that would break compatibility. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > 2015-02-19 16:14 GMT+01:00 Ben McCann : > > > Why do you say users would have to rename all th

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > 2015-02-19 16:14 GMT+01:00 Ben McCann : > > > Why do you say users would have to rename all their import statements? Is > > there a patch pending that we're consider which would change the package > > name? I don't think there'd be any cha

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On 19 February 2015 at 17:13, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > That sounds more like a political release number, I would hope we were > not too political here (except about Apache values :) ) Not necessarily, my example was about requiring a major bump in JVM version. Still binary compatible, but mig

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

That sounds more like a political release number, I would hope we were not too political here (except about Apache values :) ) Changing the major version number should cause Maven/OSGi to moan if project A needs say bcel 5.1 and another tries to pull in 6.0 - that would be the purpose of the major

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 19/02/2015 16:29, sebb a écrit : > However, according to SemVer one should bump major version if and only > if breaking compat. > It's only recently that Commons has started discussing whether to use > strict SemVer or not; I don't think it has been agreed for all > components. SemVer provides

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On 19 February 2015 at 15:19, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > 2015-02-19 16:14 GMT+01:00 Ben McCann : > >> Why do you say users would have to rename all their import statements? Is >> there a patch pending that we're consider which would change the package >> name? I don't think there'd be any changes th

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

2015-02-19 16:14 GMT+01:00 Ben McCann : > Why do you say users would have to rename all their import statements? Is > there a patch pending that we're consider which would change the package > name? I don't think there'd be any changes that be hard for end users to > deal with that I'm aware of. >

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Why do you say users would have to rename all their import statements? Is there a patch pending that we're consider which would change the package name? I don't think there'd be any changes that be hard for end users to deal with that I'm aware of. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Benedikt Ritter

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

2015-02-19 16:06 GMT+01:00 Emmanuel Bourg : > Le 19/02/2015 15:17, Ben McCann a écrit : > > Perhaps if there are only a few breaking changes we could prioritize > > reviewing those first and leave the rest for 6.1. Alternatively, we > could > > release what's available now as 6.0 and release all

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 19/02/2015 15:17, Ben McCann a écrit : > Perhaps if there are only a few breaking changes we could prioritize > reviewing those first and leave the rest for 6.1. Alternatively, we could > release what's available now as 6.0 and release all the patches in a couple > months as 7.0. I wouldn't fo

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Perhaps if there are only a few breaking changes we could prioritize reviewing those first and leave the rest for 6.1. Alternatively, we could release what's available now as 6.0 and release all the patches in a couple months as 7.0. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 1

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 19/02/2015 04:04, Ben McCann a écrit : > Would it be possible to release 6.0 now and release Mark's patches as 6.1 > or 7.0? I'm concerned it may be quite a long time before his patches are > committed since they are not actively being reviewed and there is no > activity on them for the past cou

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 19/02/2015 14:59, Ben McCann a écrit : > Mark, do any of your pending changes break binary compatibility? If so, do > you mind sharing which do and which don't. It could be nice to release a > 6.0 now and then release a 6.1 with your changes and any bug fixes for > issues discovered in 6.0 The

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

+mark Mark, do any of your pending changes break binary compatibility? If so, do you mind sharing which do and which don't. It could be nice to release a 6.0 now and then release a 6.1 with your changes and any bug fixes for issues discovered in 6.0 Thanks, Ben On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:45 PM,

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

2015-02-19 5:11 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory : > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Ben McCann wrote: > > > Would it be possible to release 6.0 now and release Mark's patches as 6.1 > > or 7.0? I'm concerned it may be quite a long time before his patches are > > committed since they are not actively bein

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Ben McCann wrote: > Would it be possible to release 6.0 now and release Mark's patches as 6.1 > or 7.0? I'm concerned it may be quite a long time before his patches are > committed since they are not actively being reviewed and there is no > activity on them for t

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Would it be possible to release 6.0 now and release Mark's patches as 6.1 or 7.0? I'm concerned it may be quite a long time before his patches are committed since they are not actively being reviewed and there is no activity on them for the past couple weeks. There is little downside to frequent r

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Great, thanks for the update! Btw, for those not familiar with which issues those are, here's a list of the ones Mark raised that are not yet resolved: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-79 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-195 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-196 https:

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 09/02/2015 06:29, chengas123 a écrit : > BCEL really needs the 6.0 release to be cut or it will no longer be > compatible with any supported version of Java. Would anyone be able to cut a > new release? I will once the issues raised by Marks Roberts are addressed. Emmanuel Bourg ---

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Hi, The performance degradation issue with the UTF-8 cache has now been fixed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-186 Java 7 is EOL (end-of-life) in April and will no longer receive updates at that point in time. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/eol-135779.html BCE

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Thank you for the reviews. I'll roll a new release candidate though to address the cache issue reported by Konstantin. Emmanuel Bourg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

+1 On 10/08/2014 01:54 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: +1 builds from source-tarball with my complete compiler zoo Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Hi all, The third release candidate of BCEL is ready to pass under your scrutiny. Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/bcel/tags/BCEL_6_0_RC3/ (r1

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

+1 builds from source-tarball with my complete compiler zoo Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Hi all, > > The third release candidate of BCEL is ready to pass under your scrutiny. > > Tag: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/bcel/tags/BCEL_6_0_RC3/ > (r1627908) > > Release notes: > http:/

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Adding a clear method seems reasonable for app that are "long" running. Gary On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 07/10/2014 13:51, Gary Gregory a écrit : > > > Can you flush it? Can you disable it? > > No, but the size retained is reasonable. > > Emmanuel Bourg > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 07/10/2014 13:51, Gary Gregory a écrit : > Can you flush it? Can you disable it? No, but the size retained is reasonable. Emmanuel Bourg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands,

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 07/10/2014 11:26, Emmanuel Bourg a écrit : > > > If nobody object I'll remove this cache, the impact on the performance > > is too important to enable it by default, and the static state smells > > like a quick and dirty implementation. T

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 07/10/2014 11:26, Emmanuel Bourg a écrit : > If nobody object I'll remove this cache, the impact on the performance > is too important to enable it by default, and the static state smells > like a quick and dirty implementation. This feature could return as a > pluggable cache if someone wants

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 30/09/2014 14:15, Konstantin Kolinko a écrit : > AFAIK jars from JIRA web application were used for the test. From > comment on commit that removed the cache, the difference was 10-15%, > for our copy of BCEL that already had other optimizations (code > removal) applied: I ran the PerformanceT

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

2014-09-30 14:50 GMT+04:00 Emmanuel Bourg : > Hi Konstantin, > > Thank you very much for the feedback. > >> I have the following concerns: >> >> 1) Someone was testing Tomcat usage of BCEL and found that using this >> caching did not improve performance, but reduced it for our use case. >> It was r

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Hi Konstantin, Thank you very much for the feedback. > I have the following concerns: > > 1) Someone was testing Tomcat usage of BCEL and found that using this > caching did not improve performance, but reduced it for our use case. > It was reported in the following Bugzilla issue: > > https://

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 28/09/2014 14:58, sebb a écrit : > Sigs are necessary but not sufficient - the published artifacts must > also have at least one hash. I added the hashes. Emmanuel Bourg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apa

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On 28 September 2014 07:53, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Le 28/09/2014 02:36, sebb a écrit : > >> -1 hashes are missing from the directory > > The directory contains the PGP signatures, that's even better. Sigs are necessary but not sufficient - the published artifacts must also have at least one hash

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 28/09/2014 02:36, sebb a écrit : > -1 hashes are missing from the directory The directory contains the PGP signatures, that's even better. > Link to KEYS file is needed in the vote e-mail thread As usual that's the KEYS file of the Apache Commons project, no need to repeat it in every vote f

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

On 27 September 2014 08:50, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Hi all, > > The third release candidate of BCEL is ready to pass under your scrutiny. > > Tag: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/bcel/tags/BCEL_6_0_RC3/ > (r1627908) > > Release notes: > http://people.apache.org/~ebourg/bcel/RELEAS

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

2014-09-27 11:50 GMT+04:00 Emmanuel Bourg : > Hi all, > > The third release candidate of BCEL is ready to pass under your scrutiny. > > Tag: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/bcel/tags/BCEL_6_0_RC3/ > (r1627908) > > Release notes: > http://people.apache.org/~ebourg/bcel/RELEASE-NOTES

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

n svn. > > > > Gary > > > > Original message From: Oliver Heger < > oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de> Date:09/27/2014 09:48 > (GMT-05:00) To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3 > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

09:48 (GMT-05:00) > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3 > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Build works fine with Java 1.5 and 1.7 on Windows 8.1. Artifacts look > good. The site shows that the code base probab

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

I fixed the notice file in svn. Gary Original message From: Oliver Heger Date:09/27/2014 09:48 (GMT-05:00) To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Build works fine with Java 1.5 and 1.7

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Le 27/09/2014 15:48, Oliver Heger a écrit : > - The distribution files of other Commons components start with the > commons- prefix. This is not the case here. Because BCEL wasn't a Commons project and still distributed under it's own org.apache.bcel groupId > I am not sure how problematic the

Re: [VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Build works fine with Java 1.5 and 1.7 on Windows 8.1. Artifacts look good. The site shows that the code base probably needs some work to improve quality, but this does not block the release. Nits: - - The NOTICE file states the wrong copyright year.

[VOTE] Release BCEL 6.0 based on RC3

Hi all, The third release candidate of BCEL is ready to pass under your scrutiny. Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/bcel/tags/BCEL_6_0_RC3/ (r1627908) Release notes: http://people.apache.org/~ebourg/bcel/RELEASE-NOTES.txt Distribution files: http://people.apache.org/~ebourg/bc