Hi Stephan, I’d love to provide Commons Net 3.2 for Kepler but it has not been ip-approved yet.
http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7026 The release was cast by Apache on 3-Dec-2012 – definitely too late to get it approved and included in Juno SR2 but I much hope Kepler will work. https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=346892#c7 For the records, I had reported the deadlock problem with the 3.x version to Apache on 24-May-2012, (that was after we had got 3.1 ip-approved and put into Orbit), but we’ve been happily living with Commons Net 2.2 so far though I’m glad the issue is finally fixed. Thanks, Martin -- Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect – Development Tools, Wind River direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David M Williams Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:17 AM To: Cross project issues Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Heads up ... new "Recommended" Orbit repo for Juno SR2 It is too late for SR2, for several reasons, but a great suggestion for Kepler, if the TM project (or others) want it. Just to briefly outline the reasons, we are already up to RC2 and RC3, so I think it'd have to be a "blocking problem" to cause all that stress, and it doesn't sound like a blocking problem, from what I've heard. I don't know who else uses it, but typically it's only reasonable to give the "community" of projects and adopters a minimum of a month, or two, notice of what's coming in a maintenance release, especially if it involves a "major" version change [And, I mean a month or two before the first release candidate, not the "GA date"]. We in Orbit do have a generic "ramp down" process for the purpose of stability, so it'd have to be a pretty strong case. But, if you and the TM project think it is a blocking problem, and worth the churn, feel free to open bugs, CQs, etc., and continue to make your case. I'm just giving you my impression from the little I know. [I would say it would have been a good suggestion a month or two ago, but not sure when 3.2 was released, since the date on their web site says "TBA" (even though it appears to be available for download), so, maybe just released?] And, Kepler is not that far away. I don't recall seeing the "CQ deadline" for Kepler officially announced recently by the Eclipse Foundation, but its typically "M5" which is just a couple of weeks away (February 8). (Its not that they can not be submitted after that, but those submitted by the M5 deadline allows for proper planning, etc. and thus given higher priority, all else being equal). But, I'm not specking for the Eclipse Foundation ... I hope they weren't waiting for me :) .... just saying what it has been in the past several yearly releases. This is probably not a very constructive reply (and not what you wanted to hear) ... but, I do think we need to focus on stability for Juno, and new things for Kepler. Thanks for bringing it up, though. From: Stephan Leicht Vogt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Date: 01/29/2013 01:51 AM Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Heads up ... new "Recommended" Orbit repo for Juno SR2 Sent by: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ________________________________ Hi Some text went missing in the last mail. At least a: Greetings Stephan --- Stephan Leicht Vogt Senior Software Engineer BSI Business Systems Integration AG Täfernstrasse 16a, CH-5405 Baden Phone (direct): +41 56 484 19 47 www.bsiag.com<http://www.bsiag.com/> On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:48 AM, Stephan Leicht Vogt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all Wouldn't it be better in this situation to pack the newest Version 3.2 from commons net to Orbit. Even if this comes up a little late and the R Version of Orbit is already promoted for Juno SR2. As Apache has released 3.2 this would be IMHO the better way than to pack an version which is two years old into the EPP. I would do the update but David Dykstal would have to open a (high prio?) CQ from the TM Project to use Apache Commons Net 3.2 so Orbit could open a piggyback. What do you think? Or · From: "Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:[email protected]>> · Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:30:34 +0000 · Accept-language: en-US · Delivered-to: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> · Thread-index: AQHN+leHmRtU+ONw4kCQt/T6cQwZMJhZRdgAgAAH+ID//34PkA== · Thread-topic: [cross-project-issues-dev] Heads up ... new "Recommended" Orbit repo for Juno SR2 ________________________________ Hi David (and all), We only want a build-time selection of Commons Net 2.2 from Orbit. The MANIFEST.MF at runtime should be open to allow [2.2,4.0) or even higher (as per the recent ICU4J discussion). The reason for picking 2.2 by default is that it’s known to work safely whereas 3.1 can produce a deadlock in some situations with Telnet. End users should be able to deploy 3.2 (which is not in Orbit yet) or 3.1 (if they are not affected by the deadlock situation). Does anybody know how to enforce a particular bundle version install at build time with Maven ? Thanks, Martin --- Stephan Leicht Vogt Senior Software Engineer BSI Business Systems Integration AG Täfernstrasse 16a, CH-5405 Baden Phone (direct): +41 56 484 19 47 www.bsiag.com<http://www.bsiag.com/> [attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM] _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
