Am Wed, 03 Dec 2014 01:55:40 +0300
schrieb Alex <alex3...@zoho.com>:
> Is there a chance to get VFS-180 in 2.1?
Yes, of course. Looking through the patches I don't think it is
particular complicated (but also I see some things I would do
differently from 2012/04/24 14:04.)
Instead of
`name.getScheme().equals("webdav") ? "http" : "https"` I would more
factor in the provider type. Maybe forcefully use http or https based
on the provider only (or allow a auto detection somehow?).
The main thing open is I guess, it should really set up a WebDavS test
server and run built-in provider tests automatically.
Please review, is this actually doing certificate checking and
especially host name checking?
And I am not sure if 2 filename parsers are needed. Can we just use the
base Http(s)NameParsers?
Generally speaking: I guess there are many things wanting to be merged
and I would rather have soon a 2.2 (once we know how to do it) than
spending more time on the bugs.
Gruss
Bernd
>
> On 03/12/14 01:51, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > ok, lets start another try to get VFS released. (and refresh my
> > memories who is volunteering for the RM? - I would do it but I
> > think we need a PMC at close hand).
> >
> > Currently are 3 open blocker bugs, for one I have a patch pending,
> > the other two I am inclined to downgrade when nobody takes care of
> > them: They affect only a specific usecase, I am not sure if they are
> > regressions at all (I dont want to discourage anybody to solve them,
> > but I will not invest time before the release).
> >
> > I am not so familiar with all of the Release Process, so I hope
> > somebody will help me, preferable from the PMC?
> >
> >
> > Ralph summarized, what he remebers is needed, I want to comment on
> > it:
> >
> >
> > Am Sat, 29 Nov 2014 19:54:42 -0700 schrieb Ralph Goers
> > <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>:
> >
> >> I acted as release manager for 2.0. I did that because at the
> >> time I had a need for Commons VFS, I had a need to fix a bunch of
> >> stuff that didn’t work in 1.0, and I had the necessary privileges
> >> to do it. Since that time I have been focused on Log4j 2 almost
> >> completely with what little time I have. I have seen others
> >> commit fixes and enhancements and like you, I have been surprised
> >> that no one has bothered to perform a release. It should have
> >> happened a long time ago.
> >>
> >> One challenge to releasing VFS is that unlike most Commons
> >> projects, it is a multi-module project and it uses the Maven
> >> release plugin to perform a release. While this makes things a bit
> >> more complicated it still isn’t that hard to do.
> > Actually so much time has passed, that it does no longer look hard
> > for you. But when I look at the svn, I see no RC tags, a 2.0 tag
> > which does not fit the 1.0 naming conventions, I see 12 tries to
> > actually release the project (and quite a few rollbacks or tag
> > copies). I would not call this "not hard". But I do agree, your
> > writeup helps, and it should be possible (at least with PMC help).
> > I tried to follow the release tries in the archives, thats helpfull
> > too.
> >
> >> Unfortunately, I don’t believe I
> >> documented the release process but it should be similar to
> >> http://wiki.apache.org/logging/Log4j2ReleaseGuide
> >> <http://wiki.apache.org/logging/Log4j2ReleaseGuide>, since I based
> >> the Log4j build and release process after VFS.
> >
> > Before we do this, a couple of questions:
> >
> > - how hard is it to delete tags from SVN and who can do that? I know
> > from experience with the release plugin that you typically need
> > to delete the tag multiple times to get things right. So it would be
> > good if somebody is available to do that on demand. And will we
> > actually tag each RC with the release version and modify this, or
> > will we have RC tags in the pom and
> >
> > - do we maven-release RCs with the plugin? Is it ok if I cut the
> > first RC myself? Ralph used Nexus staging. Can I get access to one
> > which is set up for commons, or should a ask INFRA to prepare one?
> >
> > - I haven't found requirements (besides commiter-owned) on the build
> > environment, do we use OpenJDK or OracleJDK. Is Windows
> > acceptable? (I think we are talking Java 6 here)
> >
> > - is a 3kbit key fine for code signing?
> >
> > - I would actually prefer to release before moving jcifs into core.
> > If somebody wants to see it released with 2.1, then please provide a
> > patch. I think the only solution would be a default-off profile
> > with an optional LPGL dinary nor source will pull in this
> > dependency by default.
> >
> > - I would not care for Java 8 compile. Or actually: yes it compiles
> > but the site built might not completely work.
> >
> >
> > In parallel to that I will start a discussion on the Clirr report. I
> > did that in the past and I will make a spreadsheet so we can work
> > sharedly on marking things as reviewed or critical.
> >
> > (the last time i tried to discuss it, I had uploaded:
> > http://people.apache.org/~ecki/commons-vfs/commons-vfs2/clirr-report.html
> > )
> >
> >
> > Greetings
> > Bernd
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
