Hi Robert, I've had some time to look at this.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 11:17:47PM -0400, Bill Blough wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 02:02:58PM -1000, robertlazarski wrote: > > I was able to run the json tests successfully today. > > > > I have some time again for Axis2/C and I made some commits today - please > > review, I got some help from modern AI tools. > > > > https://github.com/apache/axis-axis2-c-core/commit/580af19055cf77b47602d8f5443784efb7555bdd > > The changes look fine to me. However, I did update the PKG_CHECK_MODULES to require the latest json-c version. Some of the enum values added to json_tokener_error_to_str are only available in the latest version, and trying to compile with an older version gives a compile error. By specifying the version via the pkgconf check it will give a more user-friendly message about the required version not being available, rather than a compiler error about undeclared variables. > > Anyways, I have some time in the next week and any guidance on what needs > > to happen before a 2.0.0 release would be helpful. > <snip> > > I can go through and triage again to see what we can pare down to a > reasonable release target, but that probably won't happen until next > weekend. > I've looked through the issues again. It was a fairly quick look, and I didn't delve too deeply into specifics. I untagged a few things that were tagged 1.7.0 that I no longer think are good candidates for the next release, and also tagged the JSON related issues, since they weren't included. I also fixed one really easy issue, so that's something, at least. But after the add/remove we're still at 84 (for now). The majority of the issues I had tagged for 1.7.0 are memory-related: crashes, leaks, invalid dereferences, etc. In a perfect world, these would all be fixed before the next release. But I also suspect some aren't fixable in their current state. Also, it's unclear to me how much pressure you're getting from the board with regard to the c side of things, but I imagine it's non-zero. And I'm curious if there are any expectations around a time frame for a release. If either of these are true, then I suspect a significant number of those issues will need to be deferred in the interest of cutting a release sooner rather than later. Regardless, I suspect the next thing I should do is take a deeper dive into the open issues and start trying to reproduce them. I'd say anything currently tagged 1.7.0 that is also reproducible with the current codebase could be a potential candidate for 2.0. Anything not reproducible with the information given should be, at minimum, excluded from 2.0. Depending on the circumstances, those items could be either closed or deferred for additional investigation at a later time. The caveat there is that at a few hours a week, it's likely to take me a significant amount of time to get through everything, so if there is some sort of target date, then we'll need to come up with a different approach. Best regards, Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
