Re: Github fork issue with dependabot

I think it's a bug with dependabot at github, so have raised it as such with them. >From what I can tell the .github/dependabot.yml is the configuration part but it also has an approval part to enable and disable under the projects settings. Under my fork's settings, dependabot is disabled, so it

Re: [ALL] Drop Travis in favor of Apache CI and GitHub Actions

Hi. Do github actions have allow_failure？ Gary Gregory 于 2020年8月16日周日 上午5:35写道： > If we want ARM builds for a component, then by all means let's us Travis > until GitHub catches up. > > Gary > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 16:51 Geoffrey Blake > wrote: > > > Not familiar with Apache CI, but github ac

Github action versioning

Hi, I am seeing an awful lot of list traffic generated for patch updates to github actions e.g. updating from v1.4.0 to v1.4.1 Having read [1], my understanding is that we can specify v1 and that will always point to the latest 1.x.x release. Would it not be better to specify v1 for these action

Re: [all] cicd philosophy (was: Re: Introducing Maven Wrapper)

I personally only use mvnw as a tool to force maven versions, or on situations where we must use some machines without maven installed. It is quite like gradlew in usage, but notice that maven have far less major versions and far better backward compatibility than gradle, so in most repos we do not

Re: Github action versioning

I REALLY suggest we move all dependabot mails to another mailing list. please create one. Mark Thomas 于 2020年8月16日周日 下午5:55写道： > Hi, > > I am seeing an awful lot of list traffic generated for patch updates to > github actions e.g. updating from v1.4.0 to v1.4.1 > > Having read [1], my understand

Re: [LOGGING][DAEMON] Update Java 6 to 7

On 15/08/2020 19:00, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 1:14 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > >> On 10/08/2020 17:26, Gary Gregory wrote: >>> As recently done for [EMAIL], I propose we update [LOGGING] and [DAEMON] >>> from Java 6 to 7 to streamline building on CIs. >> >> -1 for DAEMON. Tomcat

Re: [LOGGING][DAEMON] Update Java 6 to 7

I suddenly arise a good idea... How about 1. we release a java 7 version of this repo. 2. we wait for user argue about this. 3. if no users argue about this, we just go forward to 7. Otherwise, we re-consider about this. Mark Thomas 于 2020年8月16日周日 下午6:08写道： > On 15/08/2020 19:00, Gary Gregory

Re: [ALL] Drop Travis in favor of Apache CI and GitHub Actions

I like the use both solution. I personally like the CI system to be closer to the code. Thus, I lean towards GitHub actions. -Rob > On Aug 15, 2020, at 2:07 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Hi All, > > In order to ease maintenance, I propose that we drop Travis CI in favor of > Apache CI and Git

Re: Github action versioning

> On Aug 16, 2020, at 5:59 AM, Xeno Amess wrote: > > I REALLY suggest we move all dependabot mails to another mailing list. > please create one. Your point has pulled me from a -1 to a -0, where I want the emails as bots should be treated as people in some sense. That said, I’m curious as t

Re: Github action versioning

@Rob Tompkins Hi. Please consider: 1. Most people who subscribe commons-dev have no right to do any operations to dependabot prs. We can not help merge them, nor decline them & close them. Means reading such mails are a waste of time. 2. Most people who subscribe commons-dev actually do not really

Re: Github action versioning

Sure. That’s why you’ve pulled me from a “no” to a non-blocking dissenting opinion. I will go with community consensus at this point despite my opinion (-0) (-; -Rob > On Aug 16, 2020, at 8:25 AM, Xeno Amess wrote: > >  > @Rob Tompkins > Hi. > Please consider: > 1. Most people who subscrib

Re: Github action versioning

> On Aug 16, 2020, at 8:29 AM, Rob Tompkins wrote: > >  > Sure. That’s why you’ve pulled me from a “no” to a non-blocking dissenting > opinion. I will go with community consensus at this point despite my opinion > (-0) (-; > > -Rob > >>> On Aug 16, 2020, at 8:25 AM, Xeno Amess wrote: >>>

Re: Github action versioning

I would not do that for Maven plugins in a POM, so I would not do that either for GitHub actions. Mailing list volume is a different topic. Gary On Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 05:55 Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi, > > I am seeing an awful lot of list traffic generated for patch updates to > github actions e.g

Re: [LOGGING][DAEMON] Update Java 6 to 7

> On Aug 16, 2020, at 6:13 AM, Xeno Amess wrote: > > I suddenly arise a good idea... > How about > 1. we release a java 7 version of this repo. > 2. we wait for user argue about this. > 3. if no users argue about this, we just go forward to 7. Otherwise, we > re-consider about this. That wo

Re: Github action versioning

On 16/08/2020 13:58, Gary Gregory wrote: > I would not do that for Maven plugins in a POM, so I would not do that > either for GitHub actions. Fair enough. It looked to me as if these updates were being approved largely automatically hence the suggestion to skip that and just let the upgrades happ

Re: [LOGGING][DAEMON] Update Java 6 to 7

> On Aug 16, 2020, at 6:08 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > > On 15/08/2020 19:00, Gary Gregory wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 1:14 PM Mark Thomas > > wrote: >> >>> On 10/08/2020 17:26, Gary Gregory wrote: As recently done for [EMAIL], I propose we update [LOGGING] and

Re: Github action versioning

I wonder if openjdk has considered all the auto generated traffic that might be triggered from github. As for JDK 16 they are moving from Mercurial to Git, and moving from internal hosting to Github. I guess we will know shortly as ramp down for JDK 16 will start something in december. Having seen

Re: Github action versioning

Hi all, As Apache Commons is a single Apache Project, we have one dev and one user ML. I think we should keep it that way, it helps Commons be Commons IMO. We also have one git commit ML. We could have an additional ML for robots which would only be used by services like github so any PR and Depen

Re: [LOGGING][DAEMON] Update Java 6 to 7

On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 11:13, Xeno Amess wrote: > > I suddenly arise a good idea... > How about > 1. we release a java 7 version of this repo. > 2. we wait for user argue about this. That has already happened ... As noted earlier in this thread, Tomcat needs a version that compiles on Java 6 >

Re: [LOGGING][DAEMON] Update Java 6 to 7

I've pushed change to the pom which allows compilation on Java14. Will that suffice? On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 15:29, sebb wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 11:13, Xeno Amess wrote: > > > > I suddenly arise a good idea... > > How about > > 1. we release a java 7 version of this repo. > > 2. we wai

Re: [LOGGING][DAEMON] Update Java 6 to 7

On 16/08/2020 15:45, sebb wrote: > I've pushed change to the pom which allows compilation on Java14. > > Will that suffice? That certainly works for me. Thanks for doing this. Mark > > On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 15:29, sebb wrote: >> >> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 11:13, Xeno Amess wrote: >>> >>> I

Re: [LOGGING][DAEMON] Update Java 6 to 7

I've also updated LOGGING to build on Java12+ The animal-sniffer signature should catch incompatible changes. AFAICT there is therefore no need to change the minimum version merely to make CI easier. On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 16:05, Mark Thomas wrote: > > On 16/08/2020 15:45, sebb wrote: > > I've

Re: [LOGGING][DAEMON] Update Java 6 to 7

> I've pushed change to the pom which allows compilation on Java14. Well it might be silly to ask but, is there a mechanism for us to make sure that openjdk 6 output jar of this repo can be run totally correct on newer JVM s? sebb 于2020年8月16日周日 下午11:37写道： > I've also updated LOGGING to build o

Re: [ALL] Drop Travis in favor of Apache CI and GitHub Actions

Travis isn't donated; the ASF pays for a subscription of some sort. It's likely discounted, but it's still ASF infra in that sense. On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 16:09, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > 2020-08-15 22:51 UTC+02:00, Geoffrey Blake : > > Not familiar with Apache CI, but github actions do not supp

Re: [LOGGING][DAEMON] Update Java 6 to 7

On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 12:13 PM Xeno Amess wrote: > 2. we wait for user argue about this. Mark Thomas just did, no need to wait. :-) -- Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em. -- (Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time)

Re: [ALL] Drop Travis in favor of Apache CI and GitHub Actions

> On Aug 16, 2020, at 1:51 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > Travis isn't donated; the ASF pays for a subscription of some sort. > It's likely discounted, but it's still ASF infra in that sense. Wow...great point. I had no idea -Rob > >> On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 16:09, Gilles Sadowski wrote: >>

Re: [ALL] Drop Travis in favor of Apache CI and GitHub Actions

2020-08-16 19:50 UTC+02:00, Matt Sicker : > Travis isn't donated; the ASF pays for a subscription of some sort. > It's likely discounted, but it's still ASF infra in that sense. Then the question becomes: What's ASF's best interest? Because, as a user of the "service" (here: automatic builds), we

Question about "StringUtils.indexOfAny" functionality/test

Hi ~ I'm in the process of porting apache commons lang to scala, so it can transpile to javascript/scala native. ( https://github.com/er1c/scala-apache-commons-lang3 FWIW) One test I'm currently investigating is this line: https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/blob/master/src/test/java/org/apac

[VOTE] Release Apache Commons JCS 3.0 based on RC1

This has been a major overhaul of JCS with many adjustments for JDK 8+, better concurrency and logging. Finally, I would like to release Apache Commons JCS 3.0. Apache Commons JCS 3.0 RC1 is available for review here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/jcs/3.0-RC1 (svn revision 409

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons JCS 3.0 based on RC1

On 17.08.20 08:29, Thomas Vandahl wrote: > [X] +1 Release these artifacts > [ ] +0 OK, but... > [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix... > [ ] -1 I oppose this release because... Bye, Thomas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsub