[BUILD-FAILURE]: Job 'PLC4X/PLC4X/develop [develop] [688]'

BUILD-FAILURE: Job 'PLC4X/PLC4X/develop [develop] [688]': Check console output at "https://builds.apache.org/job/PLC4X/job/PLC4X/job/develop/688/";>PLC4X/PLC4X/develop [develop] [688]"

[VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.6.0 RC1

Hey folks, its release time again! As discussed on multiple occasions, the 0.6 release branch will be a „LTS“ release of the „old fashioned“ or „hand written“ drivers. The develop will be the 0.7.0 branch and will contain the generated drivers. Please check the RELEASE_NOTES for all details. ---

[BUILD-STABLE]: Job 'PLC4X/PLC4X/develop [develop] [689]'

BUILD-STABLE: Job 'PLC4X/PLC4X/develop [develop] [689]': Is back to normal.

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.6.0 RC1

-1 (binding) (sorry) Checked: - Downloads using tooling: OK - Checksum matches: OK - Signature matches: OK - Signed by apache email: OK - Unpacks: OK - Existence of LICENSE, NOTICE, README, RELEASE_NOTES: OK - README and RELEASE_NOTES match those staged alongside the source distribution: OK - Con

[CANCELLED][VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.6.0 RC1

Hi, as just discussed I hereby cancelt he release and rebuild it with all modules as RC2. Julian Am 11.02.20, 14:11 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" : -1 (binding) (sorry) Checked: - Downloads using tooling: OK - Checksum matches: OK - Signature matches: OK - Signed by a

[DISCUSS] General configuration strategy for scraper based integrations

Hi all, I would like to bring up a topic which I would like to address in the next few days. We currently have multiple scraper-based integration modules. All of these need configuration. However the configuration strategies differ slightly. I think it would be good to unify them. Even if I kn

[VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.6.0 RC2

Hey folks, its release time again! As discussed on multiple occasions, the 0.6 release branch will be a „LTS“ release of the „old fashioned“ or „hand written“ drivers. The develop will be the 0.7.0 branch and will contain the generated drivers. Please check the RELEASE_NOTES for all details. ---

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.6.0 RC2

+1 (binding) Chris Checked on MacOS with OpenJDK 13: - Downloads using tooling: OK - Checksum matches: OK - Signature matches: OK - Signed by apache email: OK - Unpacks: OK - Existence of LICENSE, NOTICE, README, RELEASE_NOTES: OK - README and RELEASE_NOTES match those staged alongside the source

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.6.0 RC2

Hi, Sorry but’s it -1 due to license. notice and licensing issues. May need a little discussion to sort out. I checked: - signatures and checksum fine - NOTICE mentions “This product includes software developed at The Milo project (https://github.com/eclipse/milo).” Why is this here? What cod

[jira] [Created] (PLC4X-175) ERROR ResourceLeakDetector: LEAK: ByteBuf.release() was not called before it's garbage-collected

Alvaro del Castillo created PLC4X-175: - Summary: ERROR ResourceLeakDetector: LEAK: ByteBuf.release() was not called before it's garbage-collected Key: PLC4X-175 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PLC4X

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.6.0 RC2

Hi Justin, thanks for your vote and the pointer we indeed missed. I will discuss the issues with Chris who did the implementation and then come back to the list and see how we proceed. It should not be a big issue as we already use Milo since several releases. But I will check in deep! Julian