Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

Hi everyone, Just a quick reminder that I am making rc0 available for voting tomorrow. If you need to get any change in, or if the time-frame is inconvenient, please let me know. Francis On 2/12/2019 9:07 am, Francis Chuang wrote: The Avatica 1.16.0 release seems to be a bit overdue. I plan

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

The Avatica 1.16.0 release seems to be a bit overdue. I plan to make rc0 available for voting on Friday morning (the 6th of December) Australian Eastern Standard time (probably Thursday in some parts of Europe and America). If there are any changes you would like to see in this release,

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

Good idea. I think other outdated dependencies (if any) can also be updated in this change as well. On 15/11/2019 3:04 pm, Julian Hyde wrote: Can we also upgrade Jetty? I tried to upgrade Calcite [1] but it gets runtime errors because Avatica is on an earlier version. Julian [1]

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

Can we also upgrade Jetty? I tried to upgrade Calcite [1] but it gets runtime errors because Avatica is on an earlier version. Julian [1] https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/1580 > On Nov 11, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov > wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

The list you provide is outdated. >these plugins weren't added to the Gradle build at >some point. Please feel free to execute "./gradlew tasks" and check what is available To my best knowledge, the build script is good enough. The missing items are > * "Unused dependency" > * "Used but

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

> > To my best knowledge, the missing bits are: > * Documentation (site) update to reflect Maven -> Gradle > * Errorprone > * OWASP plugin > * "Unused dependency" > * "Used but undeclared dependency" > * Removal of pom.xml files > I'm not really sure there's a hard requirement to implement all of

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

As a follow-up, I would like to thank everybody who helped to polish the change: Stamatis, Francis, et al. Vladimir

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

Ok, so I committed Maven -> Gradle change. Even though I expect it to be ok, there might be glitches here and there. It would be great if someone could verify if the generated pom.xml files are good. Note: Avatica pom.xml files are generated at build time, so they will be different from those

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

>I think it's also possible to get CALCITE-3158 (replace Maven with Gradle) I think this is more or less ready to go. The commits should probably be squashed, and I can do that if no-one else plans to review the change. There's "remove protobuf-generated files" change. Is it truly needed to

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

I just wanted to follow up on the Avatica 1.16.0 release as I think it would be nice to get it out in the next couple of weeks. Can someone please review the follow if they have got spare cycles? - CALCITE-3401 https://github.com/apache/calcite-avatica/pull/115 - CALCITE-

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

Francis>files updated to switch over to using a Gradle docker container to run Francis>the build/release steps as well. Docker does unify the environment, however, I'm not sure it is good to make Docker the only option for the release. Gradle enables single-command "build+test+publish to

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

I am happy to build the next release using Gradle (eventually we'll have to do it anyway if we are moving to Gradle). I've previously committed a docker-compose file and shell script to automate the release: - https://github.com/apache/calcite-avatica/blob/master/docker-compose.yml -

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

I think [CALCITE-3158] would be the main highlight of the next release. I really like the feeling of Gradle and the idea of the mock ASF environment. >From my tests so far everything seems good; I would like to verify that the structure of the artifacts is good and then I think it can be merged.

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

Thanks to those who have made some headway during the last week by reviewing and merging PRs. Would early November be ample time for a rc0? If more time is needed to review and merged the current PRs on Github, please let me know. Francis On 11/10/2019 8:06 am, Francis Chuang wrote: Thanks,

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

Thanks, Josh! Very much appreciated! On 11/10/2019 2:35 am, Josh Elser wrote: I'll try to get CALCITE-3384 in. Will take a look through the reste here. A couple catch my eye. On 10/9/19 7:26 PM, Francis Chuang wrote: Hey everyone, It's been around 5 months since the last Avatica release.

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

I'll try to get CALCITE-3384 in. Will take a look through the reste here. A couple catch my eye. On 10/9/19 7:26 PM, Francis Chuang wrote: Hey everyone, It's been around 5 months since the last Avatica release. There's been a couple of commits to the code-base since and I'd like to use this

Re: [DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

I would like to see CALCITE-3158 get merged. But it seems to be still working in progress. - Haisheng -- 发件人：Francis Chuang 日　期：2019年10月10日 07:26:01 收件人： 主　题：[DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0 Hey everyone, It's been around 5

[DISCUSS] Towards Avatica 1.16.0

Hey everyone, It's been around 5 months since the last Avatica release. There's been a couple of commits to the code-base since and I'd like to use this as an opportunity to get a few more PRs in and make a release available for voting. I am happy to be release manager for this release. In