Hi Craig,
worx for me ... ;-)
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
On 09.11.12 23:15, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Siegfried,
Thanks for taking a look at the release. You have given a good reason
for your -1. Reasonable people may disagree; I would not call this
issue a blocker. In fact, there's no requirement that a release
actually work (!) but that it is legally proper and downstream users
might find it useful. That's why a -1 will not block a release,
assuming more +1 than -1.
We have several +1 and your -1 so far. If we don't get any more votes,
we will forward the vote to the IPMC for their approval.
Regards,
Craig
On Nov 9, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
Hi Florian and Harry,
thanks for responding even in the middle of the night ...
ad 1) my bad - I indeed used an old wiki page set - shame on me
ad 2) "The guitests target is not part of the build sequence for good
reasons" - I know but how you find any new GUI bugs if the guitests
are considered broken and not executed? Maybe the next time we get 18
errors instead of 17 but when the tests are ignored that one bug
could cause frustration within the JSPWiki user community when it
escapes into the real world - I had my five minutes of fame when a
late change caused a NPE in my commons-exec release - I think I got
more than 20 mails with "btw, there is a stupid NPE in this method".
IMHO it is acceptable to state that 17 tests are indeed broken but
those 17 tests should be commented out to get overall guitests
working - for the remaining 17 tests we can create a JIRA and hope
for better times.
ad 3) I completely agree with your disagreement and I dislike the RAT
report as well ... :-) ... but two thoughts on that : on the one hand
there are already exceptions defined in the RAT report generation on
the other hand some guys are pretty stubborn regarding RAT report
violation - they have somehow the tendency to skip interpreting the
RAT report and complain about it which could cause a RC to fail. I
had too many rejected RC with Apache Commons ...
Conclusion - 1) was my mistake, I have a major issue with 2) and
minor issue with 3)
Still on -1
Hope you understand me reasoning
Siegfried Goeschl
On 09.11.12 21:54, Florian Holeczek wrote:
Hi Siegfried,
first, thanks for having had a thorough look at the stuff!
1) [Major] when I deploy the exploded WAR to my local Tomcat the
"Find Pages" in the left hand navigation does not work - it shows
an non-existing Wiki page instead of opening a search page - I
tried with the LuceneSearchProvider and the BasicSearchProvider but
it does not work. I did not see any error message in jspwiki.log
but the fulltext search DOES work when using the "Quick Navigation"
you're probably using an old wiki page set, so this is expected
behaviour. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-664
2) [Major] when running "ant guitests" 17 out of my 962 test fail.
Could be some missing configuration I'm not aware of but I would
expect all tests to pass ... ;-)
The guitests target is not part of the build sequence for good
reasons :-)
3) [Minor] The RAT report could appreciate a few more exceptions to
get rid of the "17 Unknown Licenses"
I completely disagree in this point - The RAT report is nothing one
will want to tell "Great, all fine!", in order to print it out and
decorate some wall. Instead, it's only a helper tool that is meant
to generate a good, unfiltered overview of reality. It's then up to
the reader to interpret its contents.
Putting exceptions into it means that you lose control over the
ignored files and risk to oversee relevant issues in later
modifications of these files.
Can anyone double-check? Currently (see 1+2) my vote is
[ ] +1 Approve the release
[X] -1 Disapprove the release (please provide specific comments)
The only issue IMO is no. 2 - but it's a minor issue that should not
be blocking a release. WDYT?
Regards
Florian
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
