* Holger Grandy <[email protected]> [2010-09-14 17:36:39 +0200]:
> Hi Scott, > > I don't see any reason not to include smaller fixes for bugs which we know > today already. We also have some issues with the > c binding resolved internally in the last weeks and will merge them to the > ASF svn. > > Which unit tests failed for you? > > Regarding external dependencies: We had the same issue with the c binding. It > relies on apr, apr-iconv, apr-util and cunit. > I personally don't like the idea of checking them in because it bloats trunk. > The native libs have to be supplied in flavors > for all OSes which we target, too. In my opinion an environment variable > (e.g. "ETCH_EXTERNAL_DEPENDS") which is used in > build scripts would be best. We did it similarly with the c binding and the > main ant build uses "TOOLS_DIR" (which is perhaps > a little bit too generic). I like the ETCH_EXTERNAL_DEPENDS idea too :-). The only thing that might be more convenient would be an autoconf wrapper around the process to allow dependencies to be specified as args to a configure script. But autoconf is non-trivial to setup and requires a lot of testing. > > Some other frameworks provide third party download packages on their > websites... > I agree providing links would be helpful. > I don't think that there is a summary of dependents for the build listed on > the website yet. Do you want to add your list > there? > > Holger > > -----Original Message----- > From: scott comer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Dienstag, 14. September 2010 16:16 > To: [email protected] > Cc: Martijn Dashorst > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Contents of Release 1.1 > > in our use of etch here at spawn i've run across a couple of bugs. > lazy me has not posted > them yet, though the setSockOpt bug has been mentioned. should our 1.1 > include any > bug fixes, and if so, which ones? > > i'll post bugs for what i found a little later today. the setSockOpt fix > is pretty easy, but might > need some discussion. > > when i tried to build at home on win7 the unit tests failed. > > i have condensed the dependents necessary for build, and we had > discussed checking them > into a deps or libs directory. should i do that? > > scott out > > On 9/14/2010 8:40 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: > > +1 > > > > I don't think a vote was necessary, nor is there any procedure to be > > followed, however it never hurts to ask to include something, or to > > poll consensus on an issue. That said, if someone is willing to be a > > release master, then they get all the leeway they need. If the release > > master thinks that the C bindings should go with the release, then so > > be it. If there's objection to doing so in 1.1, why not skip 1.1 and > > go directly to release 1.2? > > > > The ASF fosters meritocratic communities where merit is earned by doing. > > > > Martijn > > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Holger Grandy > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> since Scott is mentioning voting procedures, I would like to pick up that > >> point and start > >> a vote regarding a upcoming release 1.1 of Etch. Vote will run for 72 > >> hours until Friday. > >> > >> I propose that we publish Release 1.1 with the C binding implementation > >> included > >> in the next weeks (as stated in the mail below). > >> > >> Please vote: > >> -1 : no, release 1.1 should not contain the C binding, because ... > >> 0 : I don't care > >> +1 : Release 1.1 should be published with the C binding as described below > >> > >> ---- > >> +1 from me > >> > >> Regards, > >> Holger > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: scott comer [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Montag, 13. September 2010 15:27 > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Future of Etch > >> > >> well, much as martijn might wish otherwise, there are procedures for > >> voting such a plan. > >> > >> i don't like two things: > >> > >> 1) please don't remove the tag. > >> > >> 2) why not proceed with the release 1.1 as is, and release 1.2 with c > >> binding from trunk. less confusion. > >> > >> scott out > >> > >> On 9/13/2010 2:36 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: > >>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Holger Grandy > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> We have seen an older mail regarding release 1.1. from April. I propose > >>>> we start over to prepare a release > >>>> package in September and initiate a PMC vote regarding that when its > >>>> ready. Will create Jiras for that. > >>>> Proposal: remove the old release 1.1 branch, merge etch-c into trunk, > >>>> fix bugs, create new release > >>>> branch from trunk for 1.1 > >>> This sounds like a good plan. Go for it. > >>> > >>> Martijn > >> > > > > >
