Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

Bernd Eckenfels wrote: Am Tue, 03 May 2016 21:47:43 -0400 schrieb Josh Elser: See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a manner that is allowed for ASF projects. Which is why it

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

Am Tue, 03 May 2016 21:47:43 -0400 schrieb Josh Elser : > See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that > the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a > manner that is allowed for ASF projects. Which is why it is not built or

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

I know that RM'ing can be a PITA. I'm grateful you are willing to put the time in :-) Gary On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > Don't thank me yet, we haven't gotten the release out ;) > > > Gary Gregory wrote: > >> Thanks for RM'ing Josh! We're long overdue

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

Don't thank me yet, we haven't gotten the release out ;) Gary Gregory wrote: Thanks for RM'ing Josh! We're long overdue for a VFS release. Gary On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Josh Elser wrote: This vote fails with one -1 and nothing else. Going to be trying to roll an

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

Thanks for RM'ing Josh! We're long overdue for a VFS release. Gary On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > This vote fails with one -1 and nothing else. > > Going to be trying to roll an rc1 with the feedback given so far. > > Josh Elser wrote: > >> All, >> >>

[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

This vote fails with one -1 and nothing else. Going to be trying to roll an rc1 with the feedback given so far. Josh Elser wrote: All, Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0). Maven repository:

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

Bernd-- See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a manner that is allowed for ASF projects. Bernd Eckenfels wrote: Hello, the sandbox works perfectly fine for me. Why do you think it is not ready

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

sebb wrote: > mvn site:stage is used expressly for this purpose. Maven has no problems > with properly constructed multi-module projects -- it's a fallacy that Maven > cannot handle multi-module projects well. [Since Maven knows it is a multi-module project it should not need a different

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

Hello, the sandbox works perfectly fine for me. Why do you think it is not ready for release (beside we do not want to?) I dont think we should burden such structural and long standing changes onto a voluntary release manager given the 2.0 had the same structure. Gruss Bernd Am Tue, 3 May

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

On 3 May 2016 at 18:25, Josh Elser wrote: > sebb wrote: >> Ideally the duplicate archives should be dropped, but that is not a >> blocker, just a nuisance when reviewing. >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Yeah, I'll try to figure out what's going on with that when I roll

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

sebb wrote: >> Ideally the duplicate archives should be dropped, but that is not a >> blocker, just a nuisance when reviewing. > > > Yeah, I'll try to figure out what's going on with that when I roll rc1. I'm > not sure since it's not pulling directly from the apache.pom (I'm not sure >

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

sebb wrote: +1 along with someone to own this and do the proper diligence as a PMC > member to make sure that we're violating policy. It would be easy to_ensure_ a violation ... ! Since sandbox is not ready for release, for the purpose of getting a VFS release out it should be moved to a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

On 3 May 2016 at 18:08, Josh Elser wrote: > sebb wrote: >>> >>> > Sebb -- would addressing these points in the release notes cause you >>> > to >>> > change your -1 to a +1? I'd like to make all the changes I can ASAP >>> > and roll >>> > the next RC. Because I haven't said

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

On 3 May 2016 at 18:04, Josh Elser wrote: > sebb wrote: >> >> On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser wrote: >>> >>> Binaries are not an official release anyways. >> >> >> But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible >> with the AL,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

sebb wrote: > Sebb -- would addressing these points in the release notes cause you to > change your -1 to a +1? I'd like to make all the changes I can ASAP and roll > the next RC. Because I haven't said it explicitly -- thanks for taking the > time to give all of the feedback that you have

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

sebb wrote: On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser wrote: Binaries are not an official release anyways. But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them) that the software comes under AL 2.0. I

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

On 3 May 2016 at 01:37, Josh Elser wrote: > Josh Elser wrote: >> >> sebb wrote: >>> >>> On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser wrote: > Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility. > > I clearly stated that there were

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser wrote: > Binaries are not an official release anyways. But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them) that the software comes under AL 2.0. Depending on

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

;els...@apache.org> > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > Sent: Di., 03 Mai 2016 2:33 > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0 > > I had just tried to make sure it was included in the build because I > assumed that it was meant to be released :

[VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

Binaries are not an official release anyways. Even so, that seems like a *very* scary thing to even have this code checked into the repository if it depends on incompatibly-licensed software. Am I misunderstanding this? e...@zusammenkunft.net wrote: Hello, Agree, the sandbox profile should

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

Josh Elser wrote: sebb wrote: On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser wrote: > Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility. > > I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not worth > changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

- From: Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> Sent: Di., 03 Mai 2016 2:33 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0 I had just tried to make sure it was included in the build because I assumed that it was meant to be released :) I

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

I had just tried to make sure it was included in the build because I assumed that it was meant to be released :) It's becoming apparent that was inaccurate. Ralph Goers wrote: As I recall 2.0 did not really include sandbox as part of the release because we didn’t want to officially support

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

As I recall 2.0 did not really include sandbox as part of the release because we didn’t want to officially support the sandbox components. They might have been included in the source distribution though. But these emails make it sound like it is exactly the opposite of what I would have

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

sebb wrote: http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html mentions Release Notes but the link points to https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/RELEASE_NOTES.txt which of course is for2.0. It would be helpful to use the current release notes on the site. Ok, I'll

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

sebb wrote: On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser wrote: > Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility. > > I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not worth > changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser wrote: > Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility. > > I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not worth > changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are not > acceptable,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/index.html mentions Release Notes but the link points to https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/RELEASE_NOTES.txt which of course is for 2.0. It would be helpful to use the current release notes on the site. The new RN at

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility. I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not worth changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are not acceptable, please start a discussion about this so you can come to consensus

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

sebb wrote: The "Download and Build" page is more suitable for developers than end users (especially if it points to trunk, which is not voted on) so should not be the primary download page. Also there seem to be two identical copies of each of the non-Maven release artifacts:

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

Josh Elser wrote: Sebb wrote: > Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0). > > Maven repository: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161 The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above URL is transitory.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

(So sorry, fingers sent too quick) commons-vfs-2.1-bin.tar.gz: MD5 fdaad280f3d3c592df048a58bfa8debd SHA1 edfa8ac8c31e2e4b88898ac2418f9e7a7fe34324 commons-vfs-2.1-bin.zip: MD5 951448d632ff37363c4bd0dcad3a887e SHA1 2fd9262d349f6d62eb34912a7d56d406b7655568 My GPG key is 4677D66C Josh Elser

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

Forgot to include xsum/sig info: commons-vfs-2.1-src.tar.gz: MD5 f768cf5f2d00cfa58b70d221054ca1c9 SHA1 d5a53ecf575e961b2e6b472e8bf5b013b33bfa78 commons-vfs-2.1-src.zip: MD5 2eb6a10883b77ce137a391a7dd341120 SHA1 f831eb7cb62df295ef8b1a090e209550c6ea5c35 Josh Elser wrote: All, Please consider

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

Hrm, so I either botched the build command (highly possible) or the source archive is screwed up and doesn't include it. Can someone please enlighten me as to whether or not the sandbox should actually be included? sebb wrote: Also the sandbox tree is missing from the source archives. Yet

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

Sebb -- did you actually read the changes? You should note that those are all method additions which we already decided were allowed sebb wrote: I have now found the Clirr Report at http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html There are still some

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

Sebb wrote: > Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0). > > Maven repository: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161 The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release items as the above URL is transitory. The hashes allow

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

I have now found the Clirr Report at http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html There are still some breaking changes that affect BC as far as I can tell, so that means I need to vote -1 On 2 May 2016 at 11:31, sebb wrote: > Also

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

Also the sandbox tree is missing from the source archives. Yet there are sandbox jars in Nexus. We cannot publish source to Maven that is not also in the source artifacts. If the sandbox code is not intended to be released, it should be moved from trunk. On 2 May 2016 at 11:16, sebb

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

Also please include a link to the KEYS file, i.e. https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS Note that the standard download page is http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons/commons-vfs-2.1/download_vfs.html I think that should be in the site menu. The "Download and Build" page is more suitable

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

On 2 May 2016 at 05:28, Josh Elser wrote: > All, > > Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0). > > Maven repository: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161 The e-mail should contain the hashes of the release

[VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0

All, Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc0). Maven repository: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1161 Artifacts: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/vfs/{binaries,source} Staged site: