Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aries Transaction JDBC 2.1.2

pository.apache.org/service/local/repositories/orgapacheari >es-1070/content/org/apache/aries/transaction/org.apache.aries.transac >tion.jdbc/2.1.2/org.apache.aries.transaction.jdbc-2.1.2-schema.html > >2016-05-23 22:15 GMT+02:00 John W Ross : > >> >> I think I see what's happe

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aries Transaction JDBC 2.1.2

jdbc-2.1.2-schema.html.sha1 In other words, there is no org.apache.aries.transaction.jdbc-2.1.2-schema.html file. Is this an issue? >To: dev@aries.apache.org >From: John W Ross/Atlanta/IBM@IBMUS >Date: 05/23/2016 03:02PM >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aries Transaction JDBC 2.1.2

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aries Transaction JDBC 2.1.2

When executing the verify script, it pauses on the following output: Detached signature. Please enter name of data file: Never seen this before and I'm not sure what it means. >To: dev@aries.apache.org >From: Guillaume Nodet >Date: 05/23/2016 11:05AM >Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Aries Transa

Subsystems Performance: Application Modeller service is optional when not using Blueprint to define service capabilities and requirements.

Please note that the Application Modeller service is optional and unnecessary if you are not defining your service capabilities and requirements via Blueprint. Under these circumstances, you do not need to install the following components: org.apache.aries.blueprint org.apache.aries.application

Re: Versioning Policy

nse. > From: Daniel Kulp > To: dev@aries.apache.org > Date: 08/18/2015 06:12 PM > Subject: Re: Versioning Policy > > > > On Aug 18, 2015, at 12:35 PM, John W Ross wrote: > > Previously, you could count on a minor bundle version increment to > > correspond to at lea

Re: Versioning Policy

nse. > From: Daniel Kulp > To: dev@aries.apache.org > Date: 08/18/2015 06:12 PM > Subject: Re: Versioning Policy > > > > On Aug 18, 2015, at 12:35 PM, John W Ross wrote: > > Previously, you could count on a minor bundle version increment to > > correspond to at lea

Re: Fw: Versioning Policy

compromise from that > point of view. What is sacred though, is the true semantic versioning > of packages. > > On 18 August 2015 at 17:35, John W Ross wrote: > > Previously, you could count on a minor bundle version increment to > > correspond to at least one package in t

Re: Fw: Versioning Policy

version as > before it should not have any influence. > The only major problem would be if people use require bundle instead of > import package. > > Christian > > > > On 18.08.2015 17:56, John W Ross wrote: > > There are no concerns with a bundle version chan

Re: Fw: Versioning Policy

There are no concerns with a bundle version changing even though the content of the bundle did not change? > From: Christian Schneider > To: dev@aries.apache.org > Date: 08/18/2015 09:39 AM > Subject: Re: Fw: Versioning Policy > Sent by: Christian Schneider > > On 18.

Re: Fw: Versioning Policy

be a good explanation for the version bump. > > Btw. I am currently working on transaction to also move it to that > scheme. There I even have to bump the version to 3.0.0 as the > transaction.jms module already exists in version 2.0.0. > > Christian > > On 18.08.2015 15:

Re: Fw: Versioning Policy

packages of all bundles in the subproject. So > basically it is the same rule as in the policy document just on a > different level. > > Christian > > > On 18.08.2015 14:29, John W Ross wrote: > > No discussion on this? I personally prefer the policy outlined in &

Fw: Versioning Policy

No discussion on this? I personally prefer the policy outlined in http://aries.apache.org/development/versionpolicy, but my main concern, whatever the policy, is consistency and understanding how the upcoming subsystems release should be versioned. What is the current Apache Aries versioning po

Re: Fw: [DISCUSS] Release Aries Testsupport Unit 2.0.0

is case I think we can simply remove the dependency to testsupport > from subsystem core. I just committed a change. > > Btw. The problem below is caused by the old pax exam dependencies > testsupport 1.0.0 still has. > > Christian > > On 14.08.2015 20:53, John W Ross wro

Fw: [DISCUSS] Release Aries Testsupport Unit 2.0.0

or jpa and transaction I replaced testsupport completely. Most of its > > functionality can be done with either tinybundles or easmock / mockito. > > I planned to do the same for subsystems but it is a big chunk of work. > > See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-1258 >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Aries Testsupport Unit 2.0.0

a/browse/ARIES-1258 > > Christian > > > On 13.08.2015 19:52, John W Ross wrote: > > Sorry if this ends up being a duplicate due to the ongoing email issues, > > but all other messages that I sent out since yesterday morning have now > > come through in the right or

[DISCUSS] Release Aries Testsupport Unit 2.0.0

Sorry if this ends up being a duplicate due to the ongoing email issues, but all other messages that I sent out since yesterday morning have now come through in the right order except this one which was the very first. So I'm assuming it got lost. I'm considering doing a 2.0.0 release of org.ap

Re: Versioning Policy

I apologize either belatedly or in advance for the two or three spam test messages you will be receiving. The below message finally came through the list for me at 7:34 AM CT this morning. It was sent yesterday at 2:30 PM. There's still an even earlier message sent out yesterday at 10:45 AM CT

Test Message

Sorry for the spam. I'm having issues posting new messages to the lists and am experimenting. Please ignore.

Test Message

Sorry for the spam. I'm having issues posting new messages to the lists and am experimenting. Please ignore.

Dev list working?

I sent a couple of notes to the dev list yesterday that never came through. This is just a test, please ignore.

Versioning Policy

What is the versioning policy currently being used? Is it still based on http://aries.apache.org/development/versionpolicy and the Aries versioning plugin? If so, it's not clear to me how subsystems got a major version bump.

Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?

I, for one, would certainly have no objections to that. John > > Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint? > > Hi John, > > yes, exactly that's what I'm thinking of - sorry for not being clear. > > Regards > Carsten > > > 2014/1/20 John W Ross &

Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?

sides especially given the fact that someone (= > me) is volunteering to do the work? > > Regards > Carsten > > > 2014/1/17 John W Ross > > > > > Hi, > > > > The dependency has already been broken in trunk [1]. Is that not > > sufficient? Also,

Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?

Hi, The dependency has already been broken in trunk [1]. Is that not sufficient? Also, beware the service dependency limitations this introduces as discussed in the referenced defect. These will, of course, be mitigated somewhat in OSGi RFC 201 for R6 with support for the osgi.service namespace i

Re: [VOTE] Aries proxy-impl/blueprint-core/blueprint-cm/blueprint-web-osgi

t.cm-1.0.3/ > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/aries/tags/ > org.apache.aries.blueprint.webosgi-1.0.0/ > > > Here is my +1. Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by John W Ross/Atlanta/IBM]

Re: [VOTE] blueprint.cm 1.0.2

@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by John W Ross/Atlanta/IBM]

Re: [VOTE] Blueprint parser 1.1.0 and blueprint-core 1.2.0

log > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > > [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by John W Ross/Atlanta/IBM]

Re: Jenkins Build

I checked these changes in with http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1490244. John > > Jenkins Build > > > > Since the Java 7 effort seems to have stalled for the moment, and there > have been at least a few unrelated commits in the meantime, I think it > would be ideal to get a go

Jenkins Build

Since the Java 7 effort seems to have stalled for the moment, and there have been at least a few unrelated commits in the meantime, I think it would be ideal to get a good Jenkins build in case any issues have been introduced. To get a successful local build, I needed to point a number of poms ba

Re: Aries website outdated pages

I added the subsystems 1.0.0 release files to dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/aries/ and ran the script to update the Downloads page. The change has not yet taken affect, but I presume there is a delay. If the change should be immediate, please let me know because I either omitted a step or did

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: Aries #1856

und. > > I'd personally use #1 until the parent poms are released. Since you > have to update the poms to adjust the parents version anyway, that > should be easy enough to do. > > > Dan > > > > On May 8, 2013, at 8:17 AM, John W Ross wrote: > >

Fw: Build failed in Jenkins: Aries #1856

o adjust the parents version anyway, that > > should be easy enough to do. > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > On May 8, 2013, at 8:17 AM, John W Ross wrote: > > > > > For what it's worth, I checked out the latest from tr

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: Aries #1856

pom. > > 2) Add the snapshot repository to the repositories so it can be found. > > I'd personally use #1 until the parent poms are released. Since you > have to update the poms to adjust the parents version anyway, that > should be easy enough to do. > > > Dan > >

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: Aries #1856

Because you made sure the dependencies were already there in your local m2 repository by building parent/ first from your local workspace. The issue, for me at least, is why the dependencies aren't automatically pulled in for you from a remote repository. If you delete the org/apache/aries directo

RE: Build failed in Jenkins: Aries #1856

For what it's worth, I checked out the latest from trunk and receive the same error when running locally with mvn clean install from util. [x@x aries]$ cd util/ [x@x util]$ mvn clean install [INFO] Scanning for projects... [ERROR] The build could not read 1 project -> [Help 1] [ERROR] [ERROR] Th

RE: [CANCELLED] [VOTE] Apache Aries release parent-1.1.0

> > > >> apis if having not more complex logic. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks > > > > >> --Tang > > > > >> > > > > >> Tang Yong wrote: > > > > >>> John, Tim, > > > >

RE: [VOTE] Apache Aries release parent-1.1.0

Specifying version 3.1 (latest release) of the maven-compiler-plugin in parent/default-parent/pom.xml fixes the subsystem-core build issue on java 7 (jdk1.7.0_21). I suspect it will also fix the same issue, and perhaps others, for other projects. Unfortunately, this does not fix the issue in uti

RE: [VOTE] Apache Aries release parent-1.1.0

+1 for upgrading the maven-compiler-plugin I've been trying to build using maven-compiler-plugin 3.1 as an exercise for the past hour but can't figure out how to get it to stop using 2.0.2. John > > RE: [VOTE] Apache Aries release parent-1.1.0 > > After doing some further digging I've found we'r

Re: Aries Util Next Release Version

gt; > > > Does anyone feel like testing this out? > > > > > > > > I'd love to see a 1.1.1 release of util including ARIES-1024 in time > > for EclipseCon (March 25th) > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Tim Ward > >

RE: Aries Util Next Release Version

; > > Apache Aries PMC member & Enterprise OSGi advocate > > > Enterprise OSGi in Action (http://www.manning.com/cummins) > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > From: hugh...@apache.org > > > > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 20

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0 (2nd attempt)

This vote passes with four +1 votes from PMC members. I will promote the artifact. Final tally follows. Binding David Bosschaert +1 Jeremy Hughes+1 Mark Nuttall +1 Stuart McCulloch +1 Non-binding John Ross+1 John > > [VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0 (2nd attempt) > > > > This is th

[VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0 (2nd attempt)

This is the second vote for the release of subsystem-bundle 1.0.0, an uber bundle containing subsystem-api 1.0.0 and subsystem-core 1.0.0. It encompasses the same content as in the previous vote but for the org.apache.aries.subsystem-1.0.0-sources.jar, which now actually contains the source. Sta

Re: Generating source for uber bundles

on-mandatory for-the-convenience-of-debugging source.jar can > have the aggregated source of the aggregated jars, but you can also > leave it out. > > thanks > david jencks > On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:55 AM, John W Ross wrote: > > > > > The subsystem pom, following the pat

Generating source for uber bundles

bly this means > dropping the current staging repository, deleting the svn tag, and starting > over. Sorry! > > John > > > > > Re: [VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0 > > > > On 18 Apr 2013, at 10:55, John W Ross wrote: > > > > > This is a vote for the rel

Re: [CANCELLED] [VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0

Cancelling this vote due to the missing source. John > > Re: [VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0 > > On 18 Apr 2013, at 10:55, John W Ross wrote: > > > This is a vote for the release of subsystem-bundle 1.0.0, an uber bundle > > containing subsystem-api 1.0.0 and subsystem-

Re: [VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0

! John > > Re: [VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0 > > On 18 Apr 2013, at 10:55, John W Ross wrote: > > > This is a vote for the release of subsystem-bundle 1.0.0, an uber bundle > > containing subsystem-api 1.0.0 and subsystem-core 1.0.0. > > > > Staging Area:

Re: [VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0

This vote requires at least two more +1 votes from PMC members. (My apologies is this is a dupe for anyone. I received a delivery failure notice.) Current tally follows. Binding: David Bosschaert +1 Non-binding: John Ross +1 Tang Yong +1 John > > [VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0 > > > This is a

Re: [VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0

hemselves. Would you agree? > > In any case, here's my +1 to releasing this component. > > > On 18 April 2013 10:55, John W Ross wrote: > > > > > This is a vote for the release of subsystem-bundle 1.0.0, an uber bundle > > containing subsystem-

[VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0

This is a vote for the release of subsystem-bundle 1.0.0, an uber bundle containing subsystem-api 1.0.0 and subsystem-core 1.0.0. Staging Area: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-117/ Tags: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/aries/tags/org.apache.aries.subsystem-1.0.0/

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: Aries » Apache Aries Blueprint Web #1839

We currently seem to have a hard build break unrelated to the ongoing Jenkins issues. Is this a consequence of the blueprint-noosgi and blueprint-web 1.0.0 vote in progress? If so, can we try to wrap that up as soon as possible? Last I saw, it had one PMC +1 from David. message : Failed to execut

Aries build using only ubuntu machines

Why is the Aries build configured to use only ubuntu machines? Would it be possible to expand the list? John

Aries release process and itests

I neglected to release the subsystem-itests and subsystem-itests-api-bundle projects. Is this a problem? I looked back at some previous releases. Some of them released the itests (e.g. blueprint) and some did not (e.g. jmx). Is this optional? What would be the point of releasing itests? John

Re: [VOTE] Subsystems 1.0.0

ase of subsystems :) > Thanks > > Can we also have the subsystem-bundle (all-in-one packaging) released ? > > --G > > > 2013/3/27 John W Ross > > > > > This is a vote for the release of Subsystems 1.0.0 and all related bundles. > > > > Staging Area: >

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Subsystems 1.0.0

This vote passes. Final tally follows. I will promote the artifacts. Binding David Bosschaert +1 Emily Jiang +1 Stuart McCulloch +1 Non-binding John Ross+1 John > 03/27/2013 04:00 PM > > [VOTE] Subsystems 1.0.0 > > > This is a vote for the release of Subsystems 1.0.0 and all relate

Fw: [VOTE] Subsystems 1.0.0

This vote requires at least one more +1 from a PMC member. The current tally follows. Binding David Bosschaert+1 Emily Jiang +1 Non-binding John Ross +1 John > > Fw: [VOTE] Subsystems 1.0.0 > > This vote is scheduled to end today at 9:00 PM UTC; however, it wi

Fw: [VOTE] Subsystems 1.0.0

This vote is scheduled to end today at 9:00 PM UTC; however, it will obviously run as long as necessary. At least two more +1s from PMC members are required. The current tally follows. Binding David Bosschaert+1 Non-binding John Ross +1 John > > [VOTE] Subsystems 1.0.0 >

Re: [VOTE] Subsystems 1.0.0

it an optional dependency. While the bundles might resolve > without if the functionality doesn't work I would consider it a mandatory > dependency from a logical point of view. Is this the resolver from the > Felix project? > > > On 28 March 2013 09:49, John W Ross wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Subsystems 1.0.0

the release process for the resolver? > > You say that the resolver is a 'soft' reference, I guess that means that > the Subsystem implementation uses the Resolver service. Just curious, will > it be able to function at all without the resolver? > > Cheers, > > D

Re: Subsystems Release

member how I used to get this to work :-( > > I would ask on the maven-users list (or search it first) or on maven irc. > > good luck :-) > david jencks > > On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:02 PM, John W Ross wrote: > > > > > > > When preparing the release of the subs

Re: [VOTE] Subsystems 1.0.0

ase of subsystems :) > Thanks > > Can we also have the subsystem-bundle (all-in-one packaging) released ? > > --G > > > 2013/3/27 John W Ross > > > > > This is a vote for the release of Subsystems 1.0.0 and all related bundles. > > > >

[VOTE] Subsystems 1.0.0

This is a vote for the release of Subsystems 1.0.0 and all related bundles. Staging Area: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-023/ Tags: subsystem-api: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/aries/tags/org.apache.aries.subsystem.api-1.0.0/ subsystem-core: http://svn.apache.or

Fw: Subsystems Release

gt; > > > Did you follow the instructions on setting up your settings.xml found > here? > > > > http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html > > > > hope this might help :-) > > david jencks > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2013, at

Re: Subsystems Release

html > > hope this might help :-) > david jencks > > > > On Mar 22, 2013, at 8:21 PM, John W Ross wrote: > > > > > > > I received the following error while attempting to create a snapshot > > release per the instructions at > > http://aries.apach

Fw: Subsystems Release

ve released > > the base. > > Thanks > > Emily > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:40 PM, David Bosschaert < > > david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > On 20 March 2013 12:22, John W Ross wro

Re: Fw: Subsystems Release

; > Agree with David. > > The bundle versioning plugin only comes into play after you have released > the base. > Thanks > Emily > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:40 PM, David Bosschaert < > david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi John,

Fw: Subsystems Release

I have a few questions regarding the Aries release process ( http://aries.apache.org/development/releasingaries.html). (1) I presume we've already had the required discussion of the release and its contents? Does anyone object to the initial 1.0.0 release of Subsystems? The contents of the relea

Subsystems Release

I have recently been asked a few times about when the first Subsystems release will occur. I am currently, and unfortunately, in no position to make any commitments in terms of a definitive timeline for learning and executing the release process myself. I will try to get to it over the next few w

Fw: Build failed in Jenkins: Aries #1809

This build failed during the application tests due to: ERROR: Maven JVM= terminated unexpectedly with exit code 143. I kicked off another. John > > Build failed in Jenkins: Aries #1809 > > See > > Changes: > > [jwross] [ARIES-1017] Properly

Re: Jenkins build is unstable: Aries » Apache Aries Subsystem iTests #1808

All failures are indicative of an intermittent issue in the build environment. John > > Subject > > Jenkins build is unstable: Aries » Apache Aries Subsystem iTests #1808 > > See $org.apache.aries.subsystem.itests/1808/> >

Re: Aries Util Next Release Version

ng the minor number and > resetting the micro number. You don't have top pick the default - it's an > interactive process - but maybe that's what happened :-) > On Feb 8, 2013 5:30 PM, "John W Ross" wrote: > > > > > Okay, so the consensus is to have

Re: Aries Util Next Release Version

ser intervention during > the release to achieve, but which is safest, semantically. > > > > On 5 Feb 2013, at 21:05, John W Ross wrote: > > > > > Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing (my subject might have > > been a bit misleading), the

Re: Aries Util Next Release Version

it's easy enough > to override to the minimal increment when staging the release. > > Holly > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, John W Ross wrote: > > > > > I'm also okay with amending our version policy (not sure how old the > > information on that web

Re: Aries Util Next Release Version

> > On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:37 AM, John W Ross wrote: > > I noticed that after the 1.1.0 release, the next version for aries util was > > marked as 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT. I'm just curious if it's correct to automatically > > assume another minor version increment or i

Aries Util Next Release Version

I noticed that after the 1.1.0 release, the next version for aries util was marked as 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT. I'm just curious if it's correct to automatically assume another minor version increment or if it should really be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT. 1.2.0 seems inconsistent with the version policy specified at ht

Build Stability

Until recently, we've had a long period of perfect weather for the Aries build. The last three (1800-1802) have produced intermittent issues again. None of those builds contain the same failure. The instability started with a (correct) change to pom file dependencies. John

Re: spi fly and subsystem

Dan said he will attempt to include spi-fly if he has time as part of an upcoming additional JMX release due to version range issues. Subsystems was never on the list. John > > spi fly and subsystem > > I lost track about whether we have released the spi fly and subsystem > v1.0.0 or in the proce

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: AriesWithSnapshotDependencies #329

Note that the AriesWithSnapshotDependencies build continues to fail due to some issue related to the semantic versioning plugin and is not related to the referenced changes. I'm pretty sure I saw an email a while back about this and that it is a known issue. John [aries-current-snapshots] $ /hom

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: AriesWithSnapshotDependencies #311

Just to let everyone know what's going on (as I understand it), the integration of the semantic versioning bundle into the Aries modules requires Maven 3.x in order to build. I updated the Aries build to use Maven 3 (latest), as an experiment, which appears to work. The AriesWithSnapshotDependenci

Re: Jenkins build is unstable: Aries » Apache Aries Blueprint sample iTests #1763

Jenkins build is unstable: Aries » Apache Aries Blueprint sample > iTests #1763 > > Thanks John. Can you share the instruction for updating maven as I was > hunting for it? > Thanks > Emily > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:40 PM, John W Ross wrote: > > > > > Updating t

Re: Jenkins build is unstable: Aries » Apache Aries Blueprint sample iTests #1763

Updating to maven 3 appears to have been successful. The one test failure looks like one of those annoying, intermittent ones. John > > Jenkins build is unstable: Aries » Apache Aries Blueprint sample iTests #1763 > > See org.apache.aries.samples.blueprint

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: AriesWithSnapshotDependencies #310

Just to be clear, I made this modification to the Aries build, not the AriesWithSnapshotDependencies build. John > > Re: Build failed in Jenkins: AriesWithSnapshotDependencies #310 > > I modified the build configuration to use Maven 3 (latest) and started a > new build. Let's see what happens. >

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: AriesWithSnapshotDependencies #310

I modified the build configuration to use Maven 3 (latest) and started a new build. Let's see what happens. John > > Re: Build failed in Jenkins: AriesWithSnapshotDependencies #310 > > I think this build failed because maven is not update to date. Anyone know > how to upgrade maven version in je

Fw: Jenkins build is back to normal : Aries #1752

gt; > > Re: Jenkins build is back to normal : Aries #1752 > > > > +1 good idea. > > On Nov 21, 2012 6:48 PM, "John W Ross" wrote: > > > > > > > > As you may have noticed, this has been a particularly bad week for build > > > stability

Re: Jenkins build is back to normal : Aries #1752

a. > On Nov 21, 2012 6:48 PM, "John W Ross" wrote: > > > > > As you may have noticed, this has been a particularly bad week for build > > stability. This was exacerbated by two outright failures today. The > > failures occurred, and always occur, when the

Re: Jenkins build is back to normal : Aries #1752

rver > 11/21/2012 12:13 PM > > Please respond to > dev@aries.apache.org > > To > > dev@aries.apache.org, John W Ross/Atlanta/IBM@IBMUS, mpnutt...@gmail.com, > > cc > > Subject > > Jenkins build is back to normal : Aries #1752 > > See <https://builds.apache.org/job/Aries/1752/> >

Re: First Release of Subsystems

t likely, though not certainly, be okay to do them now. John > > Re: First Release of Subsystems > > Shall we get cracking on the 1.0.1 proxy and util releases, so that we > make sure they're ready when we do want to a subsystems release? > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:2

First Release of Subsystems

The OSGi Enterprise RI/CT release is scheduled for early November. Aries will be the Subsystems RI. The final RI binary will need to be provided within the next week. My intent is to provide the output of a Hudson build with a reference to the revision. This is acceptable to EEG. Ideally, I would

Fw: Git SVN

To be clear, I'm not asking how to use Git SVN. I'm curious to know if anyone else has used it with success in conjunction with Aries work, or if this is frowned upon by the community because it's caused issues in the past or something. John > > Git SVN > > > I'm considering using Git's bidirec

Re: Fw: svn commit: r1395921 - /aries/trunk/subsystem/subsystem-itests/src/test/java/org/apache/aries/subsystem/itests/SubsystemTest.java

/subsystem- > itests/src/test/java/org/apache/aries/subsystem/itests/SubsystemTest.java > > Hi John, > You may well be right. My changes do seem to have upset build #1705. I'll > see if versionAsInProject() helps. > > On 9 October 2012 13:49, John W Ross wrote: > > &

Fw: svn commit: r1395921 - /aries/trunk/subsystem/subsystem-itests/src/test/java/org/apache/aries/subsystem/itests/SubsystemTest.java

Hi Mark, I don't know Pax Exam as well as I should, but if our intent is to ensure the versions specified in the pom are used, I think we need to use versionAsInProject()? Leaving the version unspecified means "use the latest version" I believe. That achieves what we want for now, but may not al

Re: Aries Build 1701 with Aries Bug 931 included

the command line. Is that the type of switch you were thinking of? John > > Re: Aries Build 1701 with Aries Bug 931 included > > Thanks John. I was wondering if there's anyway of supplying a simple switch > to go back to 3.7 or 3.5. > > Cheers, Jeremy > On Oct

Aries Build 1701 with Aries Bug 931 included

Note that starting with build 1701 [1], you see a reduction by half in the number of application itests being executed. This is because previously the same set of tests were run twice, once on equinox 3.5 and once on 3.7, whereas now they run once on 3.8. John [1] https://builds.apache.org/job/

Fw: Jenkins build became unstable: Aries » Apache Aries Application integration tests #1698

The ConcurrentModificationException is a known issue in older versions of Equinox. The Aries Application tests are using 3.5.0. The CME was fixed starting with 3.7.2 [1]. Is there any reason the Application tests can't use at least 3.7.2 if not 3.8? John [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_b

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: AriesWithSnapshotDependencies #254

Any ideas on how the change in [1] might have caused [2] as seen in [3]? John [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1391209 [2] org.apache.maven.lifecycle.LifecycleExecutionException: Failed to create assembly: Error creating assembly archive jar-with-dependencies: Problem cre

Re: Jenkins build became unstable: Aries » Apache Aries Application integration tests #1698

As far as I can tell, the test failure [1] is not related to the recent change [2]. The standard output in [1] seems to indicate that the SharedBundleFramework was not created due to an embedded ConcurrentModificationException. Then, at [3], an NPE occurred because fwMgr.getSharedBundleFramework()

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: AriesWithSnapshotDependencies #245

Note this build failed with ERROR: Maven JVM terminated unexpectedly with exit code 143 before the subsystem tests were run. I guess someone killed the process? John > > Build failed in Jenkins: AriesWithSnapshotDependencies #245 > > See

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: AriesWithSnapshotDependencies #244

in the abstract class used by all tests. John > > Re: Build failed in Jenkins: AriesWithSnapshotDependencies #244 > > Thank you John - I'm sorry if I've added tests that don't clean up after > themselves properly. > > On 18 September 2012 13:17, John W Ros

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: AriesWithSnapshotDependencies #244

This is the same issue that occurred in the Aries build, but there is additional, useful detail here that I did not see in the other notice. The root cause appears to be that files are not being properly closed after use. I'll look through the subsystems itests and fix any cleanup issues that I se

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: Aries #1685

I sent a note to bui...@apache.org asking if they could grab the heap dump on ubuntu2 along with any tests results that might be under /home/hudson/hudson-slave/workspace/Aries/aries/subsystem/subsystem-itests/target/surefire-reports. Hopefully this will shed some light on this intermittent OOM i

Re: Jenkins build is back to normal : Aries #1677

Note that this is the first build containing spi-fly. John > > Jenkins build is back to normal : Aries #1677 > > See >

  1   2   >