Hi Jeff, On 11.01.19 16:05, Jeffery Painter wrote: > There are a number of fulcrum components coming down the pipeline to get > us to a release of Turbine 5.
Thanks for taking it on. I know it is not the most attractive thing to do. > Just a quick poll to see whether you prefer we keep releasing one by one > in order (as we have started), or if it is OK for me to start > pipe-lining them like I did for factory and pool? The components have dependencies on each other (fulcrum-pool 1.0.5 -> fulcrum-factory 1.1.1) How did you make the fulcrum-pool tests pass without having fulcrum-factory 1.1.1 publicly available? I strongly suggest to publish them one at at time. By the way, we have several components (like Intake) which chose to use commons-pool over fulcrum-pool long ago. To me, these two (pool and factory) are candidates for the attic. Commons-pool, for example, is much more powerful. > fulcrum-parser should be up next and includes a lot of changes that > Thomas made to support parts... while I was reviewing that code, I did > notice some comments that it would have been nice to update pool to > support generics which I just pushed an update for someone to review. > > I am still not entirely confident that the changes I made to > fulcrum-pool for generification are complete or correct, but I am trying > :-) Are these changes part of the 1.0.5 release? They are not mentioned in the vote mail. > Also - if a release is voted down, are there guidelines on how to do a > proper rollback/cancel? I think I did it once when I first messed up > yaafi-crypto but I kind of stumbled my way through that and not sure I > followed best practices. The Nexus repository can be dropped, the SVN tag deleted. No harm is done. Just be sure to refer to the failed vote Message-ID in the commit messages. Bye, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
