I've committed my fixes for IVY-636 and IVY-637. I've based some of the code on the patch included with IVY-616. Note that this last issue hasn't been fixed yet!! I didn't had the time for writing junit tests, but I tested it with the example given in this issue. I'll try to write the test next week...
Maarten ----- Original Message ---- From: Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 12:37:48 PM Subject: Re: Ivy 2.0 beta 1 On Nov 30, 2007 9:10 AM, Gilles Scokart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IVY-593 is not really related to a releases. It is somehting we normally > have to do before putting our sources in a public SVN. For that, we have > to > do what is described in [1]. That is, update the export page (requires > site > karma) and notify the US government. > The problem that I have there is that I don't know how we should handle > our > sftp dependencies, and I don't know what we should do for jsch that we > redistribute. I already tried to get some explanation on the legal list, > but it just added some confusion. Ok, so since I have no idea about that either, I suggest we change the fix version to 2.0. Since it's not really related a release, it isn't that much a problem. OK? But we will have to take an action one day or another, so I don't know if somebody can help in this area. Maybe Ant committers can? > > > Concerning IVY-586, IVY-616 (and maybe other maven related issue), I think > it are show stopper for a 2.0 release that has as major new feature the > support of the maven2 repository. Those bugs block the usage of an > important number of modules in its dependencies. On of them is xml-apis, > which is used by a huge number of other modules. See [2] for a non > transitive list of user (there is a lot of commons, struts, dom4j, etc... > that are themself very often used. Now, does that block a new beta > release? I'm not sure. I agree for blocking issues for 2.0 final, but not for a beta. If we wait for all outstanding issues to release a beta, then it's more a RC than a beta. Having some known issues is not a problem in a beta IMO, and our maven 2 support is already pretty good. So I wouldn't mind if those issues aren't solved for the beta, but it seems they will anyway :-) > > > Anyway, I plan to look at IVY-586 before sunday. I will also have to use > the second patch provided for IVY-616. If it is not yet applied, I will > apply it (by the way, did you know a to apply a patch that has new file in > it?) Ok, since Maarten has worked on IVY-616 and other related issues, it would be good to synchronize. Maarten, maybe you could make sure to commit your changes today, even if you still have some remaining issues, it will help Gilles to have a look at IVY-586, and all of us to help in your investigation to solve the remaining issue if necessary. Do you guys agree with that? Xavier > > > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html > [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/xml-apis/xml-apis/2.0.2< > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/xml-apis/xml-apis/2.0.2> > > Gilles > > 2007/11/30, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Hi, > > > > It's been a very long time since we considered releasing Ivy 2.0 beta 1, > > and > > as I said last week I think it would really nice to release it very > soon, > > before javapolis where I give a short talk to be accurate. > > > > In JIRA, here are the unresolved issues assigned to 2.0 beta 1: > > IVY-593 UNRESOLVED Check the Export Control Classification Number > > (ECCN) > > IVY-586 UNRESOLVED ivy doesn't handle relocation in pom.xml > > IVY-616 UNRESOLVED Maven Dependency Management is not used to > > determine artifact version > > IVY-591 UNRESOLVED review all tutorials to make sure they are in > > sync > > with 2.0 > > > > IVY-591 is what has been blocking the 2.0 beta 1 for so long, but I > think > > we > > are almost done. I've just checked in the reviewed sources of the last > > unreviewed tutorial (build a repository), so the last thing to do is > > review > > the tutorial itself. I will do that this week-end unless someone beats > me. > > > > I don't know how critical is IVY-593, and what really need to be done. > It > > would be nice if it would not delay 2.0 beta 1. > > > > For IVY-586 and IVY-616, I see no reason why we couldn't postpone them > to > > a > > beta 2 or RC1 if they aren't get fixed in the coming days. Maarten, I've > > seen you just assigned IVY-616 and a couple of other maven 2 related > > issues > > to you, do you think you will have something done soon? > > > > Besides this, there's one other thing I really would like to have with > > 2.0beta 1 is a publication to the maven 2 repository. We are very > > close, we are > > already able to generate a pom from our ivy file, we package our sources > > and > > generate checksums, so I think it's only a matter of packaging, I should > > be > > able to prepare this too this week-end. > > > > So, do you agree if I prepare the release on sunday (with at least > IVY-591 > > fixed, maybe some others, no guarantee though), to submit it to your > vote > > early next week? Do you see anything blocking? Any comment on IVY-593? > > > > Xavier > > -- > > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant > > http://xhab.blogspot.com/ > > http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ > > http://www.xoocode.org/ > > > > > > -- > Gilles Scokart > -- Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant http://xhab.blogspot.com/ http://ant.apache.org/ivy/ http://www.xoocode.org/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
