There is no fixed process to determine when it is releases time. Sometimes a component has momentum and a release manager is picked and leads the way, sometimes a committer needs a release and volunteers to manage a release.
Gary On Jul 17, 2017 06:00, "Amey Jadiye" <ameyjad...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Gary, > > I will take a look at pending issues if something is blocker to release, I > see already 9 issues are done for 1.1.0 release . if we are ok with these > 9, anyone can release it. BTW how do you guys decide that "this is a time > to release!" for any component ? > > Regards, > Amey > > On Jul 16, 2017 10:38 PM, "Gary Gregory" <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If someone here is really going to put time and energy into daemon, it > > would be fantastic to start with a release. It's been so long... Then > > fiddle away on tweaks, and release again. > > > > Gary > > > > On Jul 16, 2017 08:49, "Matt Sicker" <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > C quality somewhat depends on which version of C you're trying to > remain > > > compatible with (I'm guessing C89 due to Windows, though I could be > > wrong). > > > Valgrind and other tracing tools are typically used. I'd take a look at > > > what OpenOffice is doing for local examples (though they have a crazy > > build > > > system last I heard), or the FSF, Linux, Xorg, FreeDesktop, GNOME, KDE, > > or > > > other major users of C and C++. > > > > > > On the modern front, it'd be interesting if it were written in Rust, > > though > > > I don't know enough about the language to say if it's worth porting to > > > eventually. > > > > > > On 15 July 2017 at 09:26, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 15 July 2017 at 15:21, Amey Jadiye <ameyjad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Yes, that's mentioned in my previous mail, I was also curious to > > know > > > > from > > > > > the C developers here in dev-list that how can we make *that* C > code > > > > > better? basically I'm looking findbug, checkstyle, jococo, junit > > > > > *equivalent* for C code. > > > > > > > > No idea on automated tools. > > > > However when I last looked there was plenty of scope for better > > > > documentation. > > > > > > > > Also I did wonder if the Prunmgr GUI might be better coded as a > > > > (mainly) Java application. > > > > > > > > The procrun stuff has to remain as C. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Amey > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:44 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Also note that there is hardly any Java code; most of it is > written > > in > > > > C. > > > > >> > > > > >> On 14 July 2017 at 00:43, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > It seems OK to me to update to Java 6 for now and get this to > > > compile > > > > >> under > > > > >> > java 9 for those folks who will try... > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Gary > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Amey Jadiye < > > ameyjad...@gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Thanks for great insights Mark. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 9:28 PM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > On 12 July 2017 16:33:01 CEST, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >Are there plans to require 1.7 for Tomcat anytime? > Otherwise, > > it > > > > >> might > > > > >> >> > >be > > > > >> >> > >necessary to make a new major version of daemon eventually > for > > > > Java 8 > > > > >> >> > >or 9. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Tomcat major versions are aligned with Java EE versions which > > in > > > > turn > > > > >> >> have > > > > >> >> > a minimum Java version. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Tomcat supports 3 current versions in parallel so we > currently > > > > have: > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Tomcat 9 - Java EE 8 - Java 8 > > > > >> >> > Tomcat 8 - Java EE 7 - Java 7 > > > > >> >> > Tomcat 7 - Java EE 6 - Java 6 > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Tomcat 7 support will continue until at least Java EE 9 is > > > > released. > > > > >> That > > > > >> >> > is meant to be next year but there are no firm dates yet and > > > > >> experience > > > > >> >> > suggests the Java EE 9 release date will slip. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > On that basis I expect Tomcat to need a Daemon that supports > > > Java 6 > > > > >> for > > > > >> >> at > > > > >> >> > least 2 more years. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Is there a user requirement driving an increase in the > minimum > > > Java > > > > >> >> > version? If not, I suggest we stick with 6 for now. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> There is no user requirement , Commons daemon is still keeping > > > > minimum > > > > >> >> dependency on java 1.5, we were thinking to move on minimum > 1.6, > > > > nice to > > > > >> >> hear there won't be any issue with tomcat since it's already on > > 1.6 > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> For moving to much higher i.e. java 1.7 I'm sure daemon will > take > > > > >> another > > > > >> >> 2-3 year for keeping stability across projects. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Regards, > > > > >> >> Amey > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Mark > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > >Anyways, 1.6 minimum makes sense to me mainly due to Java > 9's > > > > >> compiler > > > > >> >> > >not > > > > >> >> > >supporting Java 5 targets anymore. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > >On 12 July 2017 at 09:19, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> On 11 July 2017 21:02:54 CEST, Amey Jadiye < > > > > ameyjad...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> >Hi Daemon Maintainers / All, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> >Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we > > have > > > > any > > > > >> >> > >plan > > > > >> >> > >> >moving code base to git ? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> No preference on this. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> >As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of > > > > bumping > > > > >> >> > >> >version > > > > >> >> > >> >from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 > ? > > > > >> >> > >> >shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> 1.6 is OK for Tomcat. Anything higher will cause problems. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> Mark > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > > > >> --------- > > > > >> >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@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 > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > --------- > > > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > > >
