commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0
Date Tue, 03 May 2016 15:06:30 GMT
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
>>>> 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 on how the changes should be addressed.
>>> The release vote mail really needs to include all the release-specific
>>> information that the reviewer needs to do the review.
>>> If there are caveats etc relating to the Clirr report these need to be
>>> included in the vote mail.
>>> Both to make it easier for the reviewers, and for the historical
>>> record to show that these items were considered.
>> Ok, this was not made clear to me. Thank you for letting me know. I'd
>> encourage you to update your project's website. For other projects, I
>> assume that those voting would have the context from previous
>> discussions, but acknowledge that this is not how commons operates.
> 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 already.

I think we should drop sandbox from trunk entirely; that will resolve
the issues.

Ideally the duplicate archives should be dropped, but that is not a
blocker, just a nuisance when reviewing.

I'm not yet convinced about the Clirr errors.
I tried running the previous tests jar against the current code.
There were some errors, but these may be due to code fixes. I've not
had time to investigate fully.
But in any case, the description in changes.xml needs to explain why
the Clirr errors are not a concern.

My other concerns were about missing content in the e-mail, which can
obviously be redone without needing to rebuild.

> Everyone else -- even though Sebb voted -1 on rc0, I would greatly
> appreciate if everyone could still look through rc0 and give any more
> feedback which would keep you from a +1.
> Thanks.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message