commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Configuration 1.9 based on RC 1
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:42:56 GMT
I think Sebb said he was reviewing...

Gary

On Aug 20, 2012, at 7:38, Oliver Heger <oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de> wrote:

> Am 19.08.2012 20:00, schrieb Ralph Goers:
>> I don't think that is serious enough to warrant another candidate. I plan to review
RC1 later today.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2012, at 6:38 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> If you change the POM and you want that to be part of the release then
>>> you need another RC. In this case, you want a cleaner Clirr report for
>>> that release which means that report must be able to be generated from
>>> the release tag and sources. At least that's how it seems to me.
>>>
>>> Gary
>
> A configuration of the clirr plug-in was added to the pom which excludes parser classes
generated by JavaCC from the clirr report, so the report is now clear.
>
> After the release the site for the new snapshot will be deployed, so there won't be any
clirr warnings.
>
> BTW, 72 hours are passed now, and there are only 2 +1 votes. It would be nice if somebody
did another review!
>
> Oliver
>
>>>
>>> On Aug 18, 2012, at 11:13, Oliver Heger <oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 17.08.2012 23:58, schrieb sebb:
>>>>> On 17 August 2012 21:02, Oliver Heger <oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de>
wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Gary,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 17.08.2012 21:19, schrieb Gary Gregory:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are the Clirr warning about constant value changes from 1.8 be
an issue
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> existing clients?
>>>>>>> Or, are the values only used by [configuration] itself?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the constants are only used internally. They belong to the parser
for plist
>>>>>> configuration files (which is generated by JavaCC) and define its
state
>>>>>> transition graph. They have changed because the parser now supports
comments
>>>>>> in configuration files.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is a need to add new constants in the future, can JavaCC be
>>>>> persuaded to add them at the end?
>>>>> This would avoid needless warnings in the Clirr report.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, it would help if the release notes explained why the Clirr
>>>>> warnings are harmless to forestall any questions by users.
>>>>
>>>> The affected class is not even part of the code base, it is generated during
the build process. If you have a look at the source code [1], you will probably agree that
it is hardly of any use for client applications. Therefore, I think writing a warning in the
release notes will add more confusion than it helps.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be better then to exclude the class from the Clirr report? Will
have to check whether this is possible. This could be done before publishing the site for
the next SNAPSHOT version and would not require a new RC, right?
>>>>
>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://people.apache.org/~oheger/configuration-1.9rc1/xref/org/apache/commons/configuration/plist/PropertyListParserConstants.html
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the review.
>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Oliver Heger
>>>>>>> <oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons Configuration 1.9
based on the
>>>>>>>> first release candidate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tag:
>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/commons/proper/**configuration/tags/**
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CONFIGURATION_1_9RC1/<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/configuration/tags/CONFIGURATION_1_9RC1/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Site:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~**oheger/configuration-1.9rc1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eoheger/configuration-1.9rc1/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Binaries:
>>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/**content/repositories/**
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> orgapachecommons-016/<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-016/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 release it
>>>>>>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 no, do not release it because
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Vote will remain open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org>
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message