Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache Dubbo Spring Boot Project (Incubating) 0.2.1 and 0.1.2 [RC1]

[Huxing Zhang]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:00 AM Huxing Zhang  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Just a quick check:
>
> - We may need NOTICE file in the source release

This is a required file for an Apache release[1].

> - I found .png file in source release, which is a binary file, it that
> allowed? Did not confirm with ASF release policy yet.

I check the ASF docuemention, there is no restriction not to include a png file.
I think it is safe to leave it there.
Besides, since they are only used by
dubbo-spring-boot-autoconfigure/README module, I think we can move it
into it.

Besides, I checked following for the 0.2.1 release:

- UT can passed on Java 8.
- Could not build under Java 11, I filed an issue[2], I think it is
does not block this release.
- DISCLAIMER does not exist. Need to add it, your can refer to [3]
- NO public keys found in KEYS[4] file, we need that to verify the release
- SHA512 checksum ok
- gpg signature: not checked
- Apache rat plugin should be added, I did it manually and all look good to me.

I think we should fix the NOTICE and DISCLAIMER issue before the release.


[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing-documentation
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo-spring-boot-project/issues/383
[3] https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo/blob/master/DISCLAIMER
[4] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/dubbo/KEYS


>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Mercy Ma  wrote:
> >
> > Hello Dubbo Community,
> >
> > This is a call for the vote to release Apache Dubbo Spring Boot Project
> > (Incubating) versions 0.2.1(Spring Boot 2.x) and 0.1.2(Spring Boot 1.x).
> >
> > The release candidates:
> > 0.2.1:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/dubbo/spring-boot-project/0.2.1/
> > 0.1.2:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/dubbo/spring-boot-project/0.1.2/
> >
> > Git tag for the release:
> > 0.2.1:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo-spring-boot-project/tree/0.2.1-release
> > 0.1.2:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo-spring-boot-project/tree/0.1.2-release
> >
> > Hash for the release tag:
> > 0.2.1: 64095bc0996e500c125fbd97ccb114edd88592a9
> > 0.1.2: 023fe06b8d69e4ef29923d685ed79259c1019344
> >
> > Release Notes:
> > 0.2.1:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo-spring-boot-project/releases/tag/0.2.1
> > 0.1.2:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo-spring-boot-project/releases/tag/0.1.2
> >
> > The artifacts have been signed with Key: 28681CB1, which can be found in
> > the keys file:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/dubbo/KEYS
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until the necessary number
> > of votes are reached.
> >
> > Please vote accordingly:
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
> >
> > Thanks,
> > The Apache Dubbo (Incubating) Team
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards！
> Huxing



--
Best Regards！

Huxing

Fw:[WeeklyReport] Weekly report for Dubbo 2019-1-7 to 2019-1-14

[Frank Zhao]

Hi all,


The collabobot already starts to raise weekly report issue for Dubbo from last 
week, now the framework supports mail sending function and can send a weekly 
report email while raising an issue.


The email content will be like below and I propose to send weekly report email 
to this mail list. WDYT.


Regards.
Frank Zhao


 Forwarding messages 
From: "Frank Zhao" 
Date: 2019-01-14 14:51:04
To: syzhao1...@126.com
Subject: [WeeklyReport] Weekly report for Dubbo 2019-1-7 to 2019-1-14

Weekly Report of Dubbo

This is a weekly report of Dubbo. It summarizes what have changed in the 
project during the passed week, including pr merged, new contributors, and more 
things in the future. It is all done by @dubbo-bot which is a collaborate robot.

Repo Overview
Basic data

Baisc data shows how the watch, star, fork and contributors count changed in 
the passed week.

| Watch | Star | Fork | Contributors |
| 3197 | 23904 (↑168) | 13569 (↑100) | 163 (↑2) |
Issues & PRs

Issues & PRs show the new/closed issues/pull requests count in the passed week.

| New Issues | Closed Issues | New PR | Merged PR |
| 33 | 7 | 32 | 12 |
PR Overview

Thanks to contributions from community, Dubbo team merged 12 pull requests in 
the repository last week. They are:

fix wrong word spelling (#3217)
[Dubbo-3169]Check future status before get(), return default value if not 
completed yet. (#3185)
Async enhancement (#3184)
Fix metadata report configuration error (#3183)
Routers zookeeper path (#3173)
add some small optimize (#3171)
code optimization (#3167)
modify metadata node path in zookeeper (#3166)
optimize ReconnectTimerTask's log output (#3162)
Upgrade junt to junit5 (#3149)
fix telnet trace times is always 1 (#3038)
Add javadoc for dubbo-serialization module(#3002). (#3004)
Code Review Statistics

Dubbo encourages everyone to participant in code review, in order to improve 
software quality. Every week @dubbo-bot would automatically help to count pull 
request reviews of single github user as the following. So, try to help review 
code in this project.

| Contributor ID | Pull Request Reviews |
| @khanimteyaz | 62 |
| @cvictory | 20 |
| @beiwei30 | 10 |
| @chickenlj | 8 |
| @CrazyHZM | 8 |
| @carryxyh | 7 |
| @lixiaojiee | 7 |
| @zhaoyuguang | 4 |
| @kexianjun | 3 |
| @zonghaishang | 3 |
| @LiZhenNet | 2 |
| @lovepoem | 1 |
| @kezhenxu94 | 1 |
| @htynkn | 1 |
Contributors Overview

It is Dubbo team's great honor to have new contributors from community. We 
really appreciate your contributions. Feel free to tell us if you have any 
opinion and please share this open source project with more people if you 
could. If you hope to be a contributor as well, please start from 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md . Here is 
the list of new contributors:

@mimihom @majinkai

Thanks to you all.

Note: This robot is supported by Collabobot.

Propose to add [End User Discussion] in Dubbo Guangzhou Meetup

[chenwei qi]

Hi guys,


Normally there will be about 200-300 attendees at Dubbo Meetup. Despite the
fact that we have Q during each session, we have very limited two-way
communication between the attendees and the Dubbo Community.


Do you think we can have an [End User Discussion] at Guangzhou Meetup, so
we can have deeper communication and get more feedback from Dubbo users?


Yours,

Baike

Re: dubbo-website PRs need to be reviewed.

[Huxing Zhang]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 10:08 AM 田 小波  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> dubbo-website has some pull requests need to be reviewed.

Anyone can review these pull requests, if you want to contribute, you
can add your review comments there, and the committer will evaluate
based on your comments.

>
> Regard,
> Xiaobo



-- 
Best Regards！
Huxing

Re: Upcoming Event: Apache Dubbo(incubating) Guangzhou Meetup

[Huxing Zhang]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM Mark Thomas  wrote:
>
> On 12/01/2019 15:05, Huxing Zhang wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:48 PM Mark Thomas  wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/01/2019 08:59, chenwei qi wrote:
> >>> Hi Mark,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your kindly review. I will answer your questions orderly as
> >>> following:
> >>>
>  Who is the "we" that will be checking?
> >>> The PPMC members will check the list and they will decide the checking
> >>> date. As the meetup will be held on Jan.19, I suggest the check works from
> >>> Jan.14 to Jan.16, last 3 days.
> >>>
>  What will they be checking for?
> >>> As it is the 1st time Apache Dubbo™ Meetup will be held in Guangzhou, face
> >>> to face discussion among deep users there can be useful. But the meetup
> >>> registration can be up to 300-400, too many for discussion. Check from the
> >>> registration information is to select out the deep user.
> >>>
>  Where is the on-list discussion that decided a) that checking was
> >>> required and b) what to check for?
> >>> The criteria of user selection is not suitable to be discussed publicly, I
> >>> think it is better to discuss with Dubbo PPMC privately.
> >>
> >> You appear to have missed the key point.
> >>
> >> A whole bunch of decisions appear to have been made about a Dubbo event
> >> with ZERO discussion of those decisions on any Dubbo mailing list.
> >> Public or private.
> >
> > The discussion happened on mailing list from initializing the
> > event[1], calling for talks [2] to the schedule[3].
> > The process for invite a small group of users was discussed there[3].
>
> No, it wasn't. The decision to have an "End User Discussion" session was
> made entirely off-list. There was no discussion of the criteria that
> would be used to select invites either yet from somewhere (i.e. not on
> list) a survey was developed that attendees had to fill in if they
> wanted to be invited to this session.

Right, since there is still one week before the event, let's discuss
it from now.

>
> Neither was there any discussion of which talks to select or any other
> aspect of the schedule on-list before the final schedule was presented.

In next meetup, we should discuss the schedule privately before
announcing the schedule.

>
> > [1] 
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff3a0797e15256738280647f6604e7f5f8eaf6299efe859ced85b5f0@%3Cdev.dubbo.apache.org%3E
> > [2] 
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/45364fe72f1b2c7bfb1d01f736316775c9ca99a0d9964c68dfa043e3@%3Cdev.dubbo.apache.org%3E
> > [3] 
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ef1b4e039954554082a15faa78bc04b234d04348aaa46d816a690339@%3Cdev.dubbo.apache.org%3E
> >
> >> That is simply not how podlings are expected to
> >> operate. What is most worrying is that at no point did any PPMC member
> >> say during these off-list discussions "Hang on. We should be doing this
> >> on the mailing list."
> >
> > I think there is some misunderstanding about who should be running the
> > event. It is the PPMCs who should be running this event, but the fact
> > is that most of the work are done by organizers, rather than PPMCs.
>
> If an event is to presented as a podling meet-up then it needs to be
> organised by the podling, on list.
>
> If it is organised by a third-party then it should be presented as a
> third-party event, not a podling event.
>
> The original message claimed that the PPMC would be organising the
> event. I can find every little evidence of that being the case in either
> the public or private archives.
>
> > I
> > didn't pay too much attention on this, which is my fault
>
> I don't view this as a failing of any one individual. Learning how this
> stuff works is part of being a podling. I did think that the podling was
> further along in this than appears to be the case.
>
> > and I agree
> > that the event organizers should work more closely with the PPMC. The
> > organizers are fresh to Apache way, which is quite different from
> > their day-to-day work, so I think it may take some time for them to
> > get used to it. I will keep an eye on this, and trying my best to
> > encourage them to be on the list.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I also disagree that the criteria need to be discussed in private but
> >> that point is debatable.
> >
> > I am not sure it should go public or not until I see the criteria,  so
> > I think we should discuss it privately first, if the PPMC decides that
> > it can go publicly, then we can announce it later.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> Mark



-- 
Best Regards！
Huxing

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache Dubbo Spring Boot Project (Incubating) 0.2.1 and 0.1.2 [RC1]

[Huxing Zhang]

Hi,

Just a quick check:

- We may need NOTICE file in the source release
- I found .png file in source release, which is a binary file, it that
allowed? Did not confirm with ASF release policy yet.

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Mercy Ma  wrote:
>
> Hello Dubbo Community,
>
> This is a call for the vote to release Apache Dubbo Spring Boot Project
> (Incubating) versions 0.2.1(Spring Boot 2.x) and 0.1.2(Spring Boot 1.x).
>
> The release candidates:
> 0.2.1:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/dubbo/spring-boot-project/0.2.1/
> 0.1.2:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/dubbo/spring-boot-project/0.1.2/
>
> Git tag for the release:
> 0.2.1:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo-spring-boot-project/tree/0.2.1-release
> 0.1.2:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo-spring-boot-project/tree/0.1.2-release
>
> Hash for the release tag:
> 0.2.1: 64095bc0996e500c125fbd97ccb114edd88592a9
> 0.1.2: 023fe06b8d69e4ef29923d685ed79259c1019344
>
> Release Notes:
> 0.2.1:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo-spring-boot-project/releases/tag/0.2.1
> 0.1.2:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo-spring-boot-project/releases/tag/0.1.2
>
> The artifacts have been signed with Key: 28681CB1, which can be found in
> the keys file:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/dubbo/KEYS
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until the necessary number
> of votes are reached.
>
> Please vote accordingly:
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason
>
> Thanks,
> The Apache Dubbo (Incubating) Team



-- 
Best Regards！
Huxing

dubbo-website PRs need to be reviewed.

[田 小波]

Hi,

dubbo-website has some pull requests need to be reviewed.

Regard,
Xiaobo

Re: About Dubbo project language level.

[Huxing Zhang]

Hi,

On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 9:02 PM LiZhenNet  wrote:
>
> @All
>
> Where khanimteyaz  reveiw my PR
>  , He suggested that I
> can use steam api .
>
> Can I use the  new features in java8？

Dubbo only support Java 8 since 2.7 (in the master branch).
If you are sending pull request to 2.7, then yes.



-- 
Best Regards！
Huxing

Re: Upcoming Event: Apache Dubbo(incubating) Guangzhou Meetup

[Mark Thomas]

On 12/01/2019 15:05, Huxing Zhang wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:48 PM Mark Thomas  wrote:
>>
>> On 10/01/2019 08:59, chenwei qi wrote:
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your kindly review. I will answer your questions orderly as
>>> following:
>>>
 Who is the "we" that will be checking?
>>> The PPMC members will check the list and they will decide the checking
>>> date. As the meetup will be held on Jan.19, I suggest the check works from
>>> Jan.14 to Jan.16, last 3 days.
>>>
 What will they be checking for?
>>> As it is the 1st time Apache Dubbo™ Meetup will be held in Guangzhou, face
>>> to face discussion among deep users there can be useful. But the meetup
>>> registration can be up to 300-400, too many for discussion. Check from the
>>> registration information is to select out the deep user.
>>>
 Where is the on-list discussion that decided a) that checking was
>>> required and b) what to check for?
>>> The criteria of user selection is not suitable to be discussed publicly, I
>>> think it is better to discuss with Dubbo PPMC privately.
>>
>> You appear to have missed the key point.
>>
>> A whole bunch of decisions appear to have been made about a Dubbo event
>> with ZERO discussion of those decisions on any Dubbo mailing list.
>> Public or private.
> 
> The discussion happened on mailing list from initializing the
> event[1], calling for talks [2] to the schedule[3].
> The process for invite a small group of users was discussed there[3].

No, it wasn't. The decision to have an "End User Discussion" session was
made entirely off-list. There was no discussion of the criteria that
would be used to select invites either yet from somewhere (i.e. not on
list) a survey was developed that attendees had to fill in if they
wanted to be invited to this session.

Neither was there any discussion of which talks to select or any other
aspect of the schedule on-list before the final schedule was presented.

> [1] 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff3a0797e15256738280647f6604e7f5f8eaf6299efe859ced85b5f0@%3Cdev.dubbo.apache.org%3E
> [2] 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/45364fe72f1b2c7bfb1d01f736316775c9ca99a0d9964c68dfa043e3@%3Cdev.dubbo.apache.org%3E
> [3] 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ef1b4e039954554082a15faa78bc04b234d04348aaa46d816a690339@%3Cdev.dubbo.apache.org%3E
> 
>> That is simply not how podlings are expected to
>> operate. What is most worrying is that at no point did any PPMC member
>> say during these off-list discussions "Hang on. We should be doing this
>> on the mailing list."
> 
> I think there is some misunderstanding about who should be running the
> event. It is the PPMCs who should be running this event, but the fact
> is that most of the work are done by organizers, rather than PPMCs.

If an event is to presented as a podling meet-up then it needs to be
organised by the podling, on list.

If it is organised by a third-party then it should be presented as a
third-party event, not a podling event.

The original message claimed that the PPMC would be organising the
event. I can find every little evidence of that being the case in either
the public or private archives.

> I
> didn't pay too much attention on this, which is my fault

I don't view this as a failing of any one individual. Learning how this
stuff works is part of being a podling. I did think that the podling was
further along in this than appears to be the case.

> and I agree
> that the event organizers should work more closely with the PPMC. The
> organizers are fresh to Apache way, which is quite different from
> their day-to-day work, so I think it may take some time for them to
> get used to it. I will keep an eye on this, and trying my best to
> encourage them to be on the list.
> 
> 
>>
>> I also disagree that the criteria need to be discussed in private but
>> that point is debatable.
> 
> I am not sure it should go public or not until I see the criteria,  so
> I think we should discuss it privately first, if the PPMC decides that
> it can go publicly, then we can announce it later.

Fair enough.

Mark

About Dubbo project language level.

[LiZhenNet]

@All

Where khanimteyaz  reveiw my PR
 , He suggested that I
can use steam api .

Can I use the  new features in java8？

Re: [Notification of V2.7.0] Status, TODOs, Possible Release Schedules.

[Huxing Zhang]

Hi Jun,

Could you summarize the current status of the 2.7-release branch?
I see there are still several enhancement on this branch.

As this is the first time to prepare for a release for me, I am trying
to walk through the release steps[1].
I might try to deploy snapshot to maven repository.

Once we feel it is ready to do the release, I will start the formal
release process.


[1] http://dubbo.apache.org/en-us/blog/prepare-an-apache-release.html


-- 
Best Regards！
Huxing

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:48 PM jun liu  wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Nice work!
> >>
> >> I think we should let the community to participate more in the release
> >> process, for example,
> >> 1. check out a release branch called 2.7.0-release
> >> 2. encourage people to check it out, test it and report if there is
> >> any regressions, bugs or issues.
> >> 3. while we are doing the test, we can start going through the ASF
> >> release process locally, once we think it is ready to start a formal
> >> release note, it can be done very quickly.
> >>
> >> By the way, we need decide the release manager of 2.7.0 release. Is
> >> there anyone who volunteer to do that?
>
> Sorry, I missed this mail.
> * 2.7.0-release has been created
> * we've froze the codebase, test is underway.
>
> > I'd like to be the release manager if no one is claiming it.
>
> Great, I can help you with the source/binary packaging and tagging things.
>
> Jun
>
> > On Jan 5, 2019, at 12:11 PM, Huxing Zhang  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:45 AM Huxing Zhang  wrote:
> >>
> >> Nice work!
> >>
> >> I think we should let the community to participate more in the release
> >> process, for example,
> >> 1. check out a release branch called 2.7.0-release
> >> 2. encourage people to check it out, test it and report if there is
> >> any regressions, bugs or issues.
> >> 3. while we are doing the test, we can start going through the ASF
> >> release process locally, once we think it is ready to start a formal
> >> release note, it can be done very quickly.
> >>
> >> By the way, we need decide the release manager of 2.7.0 release. Is
> >> there anyone who volunteer to do that?
> >
> > I'd like to be the release manager if no one is claiming it.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 11:53 PM jun liu  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi, All
> >>>
> >>> I am writing this mail to
> >>>
> >>> * Keep you refreshed of the latest status about v2.7.0.
> >>> * Call for efforts on code review and tests
> >>> * Discuss possible release schedules of v2.7.0.
> >>>
> >>> About v2.7, it’s going to be a milestone version, in which will make some 
> >>> significant changes. Most importantly, we will complete all IP Clearance 
> >>> related works. Technically speaking, it’s from this version on that a 
> >>> Dubbo release starts fully follows the Apache rules (lawfully), totally 
> >>> independent from any other third-party organizations or companies. 
> >>> Secondly, this version will include many new features that have received 
> >>> wide attention from the community, by supporting these features, we can 
> >>> better resolve the community’s long accumulated demands. Last but not 
> >>> least, we have made some architectural changes in this version, made 
> >>> Dubbo closer to the micro-service architecture, take the newly introduced 
> >>> configuration center as an example, it can work both as the center of 
> >>> Externalized Configuration at startup and as the center of service 
> >>> management configurations at runtime.
> >>>
> >>> To summarize, the contents already included in the CodeBase are:
> >>>
> >>> * Config Center: Zookeeper, Apollo, Nacos
> >>> * Externalized Configuration
> >>> * Service governance enhancement: dynamic configuration & routing rule
> >>> * Repackage to 'org.apache.dubbo'
> >>> * Java 8 support
> >>> * Async programming support
> >>>
> >>> Most of the candidates listed above are in the proposal list that we have 
> >>> discussed in some threads before. For a more detailed description of 
> >>> these features or how they are realized, you can refer to the draft 
> >>> development documentations within this link[1]
> >>>
> >>> Thanks to the efforts from the community (especially thank to Ian, 
> >>> CVictory and Minxuan), most of the development work has been completed 
> >>> and a round of code review and regression test based on some basic use 
> >>> cases have been completed[2].
> >>> Now I think it's time to prepare the formal release. One most important 
> >>> thing I think we should pay attention to is stability. We should 
> >>> guarantee it's stable enough before release, so we may need to put more 
> >>> effort into code review and functional testing. Based on my understanding 
> >>> of the CodeBase, such tests may at least continue to last for about 1 
> >>> week, during this period we may need to `freeze the code`, which means 
> >>> only optimization and bugfix will be allowed. After that, we can continue 
> >>> to evaluate when to start the formal vote