Re: [CANCELLED] [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Configuration 2.8 based on RC1

[Gary Gregory]

I can't say it's a convention, it's just the pattern I've been following.

Gary

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 14:59 Matt Juntunen  wrote:

> Gary,
>
> I was unaware of this. Is this a new convention that we've decided on?
> If not, I'd prefer to wait for the next release since "2.8" is
> consistent with previous commons-configuration releases and the vote
> has already started on rc2.
>
> Regards,
> Matt J
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 7:45 AM Gary Gregory 
> wrote:
> >
> > Please use 2.8.0, I've been using the 3 part version format for all
> recent
> > releases. I think it would be nice to follow this naming here.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, 22:30 Matt Juntunen 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, Bruno! I'm going to go ahead and cancel this vote so I can fix
> > > the README. I also noticed some inconsistency in the naming of the
> > > version. In some places I called it 2.8.0 and in others 2.8. I'm going
> > > to standardize on the shorter "2.8". RC2 should be out soon.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Matt J
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 1:30 AM Bruno Kinoshita 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Matt,
> > > >
> > > > Inspected NOTICE, LICENSE, RELEASE-NOTES, and found no issues.
> Checked
> > > out
> > > > the tag, and `mvn clean test install site` passed with no errors.
> > > >
> > > > The README is still showing 2.7 in the download instructions. I
> **think**
> > > > one of the preparation steps uses a release-plugin goal that
> re-generates
> > > > this file with the correct version, but I could be wrong. Not sure if
> > > it's
> > > > a blocker?
> > > >
> > > > Another thing that I noticed, but probably just nit-picking; opening
> a
> > > zip
> > > > and a tar.gz file from dist/source folders each, and opening each
> file on
> > > > Ubuntu LTS, I think not all files are UTF-8 encoded. The
> > > RELEASE-NOTES.txt
> > > > fails to open on my Mousepad editor. It pops up an error dialogue
> that
> > > lets
> > > > me try to guess the encoding to open it. Not an issue for me as I
> think
> > > it
> > > > happens in other projects (I think CSV had a non-utf readme or
> release
> > > note
> > > > too).
> > > >
> > > > Site reports look great.
> > > >
> > > > Tested signatures from Maven and from dist area, found no issues.
> > > >
> > > > [x] +1 Release these artifacts (if the README issue is not a blocker)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > -Bruno
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 16:34, Matt Juntunen <
> matt.a.juntu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We have fixed quite a few bugs and added some significant
> enhancements
> > > > > since Apache Commons Configuration 2.7 was released, so I would
> like
> > > > > to release Apache Commons Configuration 2.8.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apache Commons Configuration 2.8 RC1 is available for review here:
> > > > >
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/configuration/2.8-RC1
> > > > > (svn revision 55235)
> > > > >
> > > > > The Git tag commons-configuration-2.8-RC1 commit for this RC is
> > > > > 01e1b40769f6dd5046c74f38c4c59cf4af5e37a1 which you can browse here:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-configuration.git;a=commit;h=01e1b40769f6dd5046c74f38c4c59cf4af5e37a1
> > > > > You may checkout this tag using:
> > > > > git clone
> > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/commons-configuration.git
> > > > > --branch
> > > > > <
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/commons-configuration.git--branch
> > > >
> > > > > commons-configuration-2.8-RC1 commons-configuration-2.8-RC1
> > > > >
> > > > > Maven artifacts are here:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1589/org/apache/commons/commons-configuration2/2.8/
> > > > >
> > > > > These are the artifacts and their hashes:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8.jar=c54782ba1d6340ccf0e136c66281af7bfcf3a78235f4a2461b50a88351a6da4f463cb19ca49afb25ff82712c4f4f14985c9f960ea65213deb1ca5a9719dead38
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8-sources.jar=1e277840f25d6a89b8f9168b5dd174093db38807b13e080aa47d26ff35602e4f5e4d6cf8bece6780af6791befd2204ce25710a8cd8eea62eabe3b554ea96e28c
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8-tests.jar=e0ffd6379863426f8b3237dd3ee64f7345c8d2876a34b736ba5f653af1e7cd99a8a3825938c60f842599f0a43922bbb32d13ea7f0c624b8dce25edf0150c6496
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8-test-sources.jar=f8c88936f415ab8357c96a73f9cb318e805b6a2ae47a9de9b3176c68b1fc1f4ca8880baf9045381a29af3d858be1c3b38b9f7f9bafd700f648004b591327dc1d
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8-bin.tar.gz=061227c898cf9094e30feebcf71d2811eecb01951793f30a6afca4f11075e5789231956b3d92b2caa5d65a24aa835026527b7d8b7dc81b1743306a48cae67ce4
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8-bin.zip=47a05cf9bcfee4e5f96f7d23af463bbf56e3d044ba1ea5faaeddb34f7056ca6590e15c83738a79a46c5d5d22885d5bac7dd3930a69d21b6a05c6645f0bcc383e
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > 

Re: [CANCELLED] [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Configuration 2.8 based on RC1

[Gilles Sadowski]

Hello.

Le mer. 22 juin 2022 à 20:59, Matt Juntunen
 a écrit :
>
> Gary,
>
> I was unaware of this. Is this a new convention that we've decided on?

Although Gary's suggestion would be a slight improvement, most
of the components indeed do not follow that convention.
This is the kind of common practice that should be voted on, and
eventually enforced.

> If not, I'd prefer to wait for the next release since "2.8" is
> consistent with previous commons-configuration releases and the vote
> has already started on rc2.

Sure.

Regards,
Gilles

>
> Regards,
> Matt J
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 7:45 AM Gary Gregory  wrote:
> >
> > Please use 2.8.0, I've been using the 3 part version format for all recent
> > releases. I think it would be nice to follow this naming here.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > > [...]

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [CANCELLED] [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Configuration 2.8 based on RC1

[Matt Juntunen]

Gary,

I was unaware of this. Is this a new convention that we've decided on?
If not, I'd prefer to wait for the next release since "2.8" is
consistent with previous commons-configuration releases and the vote
has already started on rc2.

Regards,
Matt J

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 7:45 AM Gary Gregory  wrote:
>
> Please use 2.8.0, I've been using the 3 part version format for all recent
> releases. I think it would be nice to follow this naming here.
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, 22:30 Matt Juntunen  wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Bruno! I'm going to go ahead and cancel this vote so I can fix
> > the README. I also noticed some inconsistency in the naming of the
> > version. In some places I called it 2.8.0 and in others 2.8. I'm going
> > to standardize on the shorter "2.8". RC2 should be out soon.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Matt J
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 1:30 AM Bruno Kinoshita  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Matt,
> > >
> > > Inspected NOTICE, LICENSE, RELEASE-NOTES, and found no issues. Checked
> > out
> > > the tag, and `mvn clean test install site` passed with no errors.
> > >
> > > The README is still showing 2.7 in the download instructions. I **think**
> > > one of the preparation steps uses a release-plugin goal that re-generates
> > > this file with the correct version, but I could be wrong. Not sure if
> > it's
> > > a blocker?
> > >
> > > Another thing that I noticed, but probably just nit-picking; opening a
> > zip
> > > and a tar.gz file from dist/source folders each, and opening each file on
> > > Ubuntu LTS, I think not all files are UTF-8 encoded. The
> > RELEASE-NOTES.txt
> > > fails to open on my Mousepad editor. It pops up an error dialogue that
> > lets
> > > me try to guess the encoding to open it. Not an issue for me as I think
> > it
> > > happens in other projects (I think CSV had a non-utf readme or release
> > note
> > > too).
> > >
> > > Site reports look great.
> > >
> > > Tested signatures from Maven and from dist area, found no issues.
> > >
> > > [x] +1 Release these artifacts (if the README issue is not a blocker)
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > -Bruno
> > >
> > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 16:34, Matt Juntunen 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We have fixed quite a few bugs and added some significant enhancements
> > > > since Apache Commons Configuration 2.7 was released, so I would like
> > > > to release Apache Commons Configuration 2.8.
> > > >
> > > > Apache Commons Configuration 2.8 RC1 is available for review here:
> > > >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/configuration/2.8-RC1
> > > > (svn revision 55235)
> > > >
> > > > The Git tag commons-configuration-2.8-RC1 commit for this RC is
> > > > 01e1b40769f6dd5046c74f38c4c59cf4af5e37a1 which you can browse here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-configuration.git;a=commit;h=01e1b40769f6dd5046c74f38c4c59cf4af5e37a1
> > > > You may checkout this tag using:
> > > > git clone
> > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/commons-configuration.git
> > > > --branch
> > > >  > >
> > > > commons-configuration-2.8-RC1 commons-configuration-2.8-RC1
> > > >
> > > > Maven artifacts are here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1589/org/apache/commons/commons-configuration2/2.8/
> > > >
> > > > These are the artifacts and their hashes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > commons-configuration2-2.8.jar=c54782ba1d6340ccf0e136c66281af7bfcf3a78235f4a2461b50a88351a6da4f463cb19ca49afb25ff82712c4f4f14985c9f960ea65213deb1ca5a9719dead38
> > > >
> > > >
> > commons-configuration2-2.8-sources.jar=1e277840f25d6a89b8f9168b5dd174093db38807b13e080aa47d26ff35602e4f5e4d6cf8bece6780af6791befd2204ce25710a8cd8eea62eabe3b554ea96e28c
> > > >
> > > >
> > commons-configuration2-2.8-tests.jar=e0ffd6379863426f8b3237dd3ee64f7345c8d2876a34b736ba5f653af1e7cd99a8a3825938c60f842599f0a43922bbb32d13ea7f0c624b8dce25edf0150c6496
> > > >
> > > >
> > commons-configuration2-2.8-test-sources.jar=f8c88936f415ab8357c96a73f9cb318e805b6a2ae47a9de9b3176c68b1fc1f4ca8880baf9045381a29af3d858be1c3b38b9f7f9bafd700f648004b591327dc1d
> > > >
> > > >
> > commons-configuration2-2.8-bin.tar.gz=061227c898cf9094e30feebcf71d2811eecb01951793f30a6afca4f11075e5789231956b3d92b2caa5d65a24aa835026527b7d8b7dc81b1743306a48cae67ce4
> > > >
> > > >
> > commons-configuration2-2.8-bin.zip=47a05cf9bcfee4e5f96f7d23af463bbf56e3d044ba1ea5faaeddb34f7056ca6590e15c83738a79a46c5d5d22885d5bac7dd3930a69d21b6a05c6645f0bcc383e
> > > >
> > > >
> > commons-configuration2-2.8-src.tar.gz=eed2b99ebba4320799f8a11fde59c180022fd93f4c7b2c597398929368c92cce6828b163976c47629a0edf8fbc0e86be5cdf3e5f01cc734dd08f716038df026f
> > > >
> > > >
> > commons-configuration2-2.8-src.zip=321365d65479889d16e27db4e03c52cfd8a4241b0a6ef2fe1f39d07f5beed4d5d9fb09d4101de77769ef634b2f9bda46a9ba4baa706540de42605c8c1e401c8f
> > > >
> > > > I have tested this with 'mvn clean install site' using:
> > > > ***
> 

Re: [CRYPTO] Updated docker build

[sebb]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 15:59, Alex Remily  wrote:
>
> I went back and reviewed docker setup at your link:
>
> https://github.com/apache/commons-crypto/tree/79374289bdd227b5b668039c9336cd10d9e3bf7c/src/docker
>
> Nice work.

Props to you for getting the initial build working.
I just tweaked it.

> I agree that it's more flexible and provides the same
> capability.  The instructions were straightforward and the end result was a
> full build.  One can also experiment via the command line, which is nice.
> A couple of comments.  The comments on lines 16-21 should be removed, as
> you've provided updated instructions in the readme.

Done.

> I recall that during
> the last release process I recommended using 18.04 as the base image and
> was overruled because of backwards compatibility concerns with the native
> binaries.  I don't know that I share those concerns, but that was the
> rationale for using the older base.

I see.
Hopefully not an issue anymore?

> Otherwise, it seems ready to commit and close out 120 and 132.
>
> Alex
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:52 PM sebb  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 22:32, Alex Remily  wrote:
> > >
> > >  > previous
> > > submission.>
> > >
> > > Don't know that it's an "improvement", but a different approach.  I think
> > > if we provide a dockerfile that builds every supported arch (minus the
> > Mac)
> > > developers could easily modify it by removing parts they don't want as
> > > opposed to adding dependencies and builds for the parts that they do.
> >
> > That is the case with my version.
> > The builds are in separate script files that can be easily edited.
> > And if a build fails due to a source issue, it can just be repeated
> > after changing the source.
> > No need to rebuild the image.
> > Also no need to export the generated output as it is created on the host.
> >
> > > Also, I think this approach makes it easier for the next release manager
> > > because it declares all the necessary dependencies and performs the
> > builds
> > > in the proper order.
> >
> > AFAICT there is no ordering issue with my version apart from linux32
> > which needs an extra install.
> >
> > >  The last release was something of a challenge because
> > > a lot of corporate knowledge had been lost when the original developers
> > > left.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > There is some documentation in the src/docker/README file, but it
> > could be expanded.
> >
> > >  > you
> > > must have used a different checkout when you reported the failures.>
> > >
> > > I got sidetracked.  Apologies.  I need to do that and provide feedback.
> > I
> > > don't see why we can't have both, as long as we document them.
> >
> > I see no reason to have both.
> >
> > >  > > updated.>
> > >
> > > As of this PR, it's in the POM but not in the dockerfile.
> >
> > Sorry, you are right.
> > I thought I saw '32-bit build' but it was actually '32-bit Mac build'.
> > Oops.
> > We have already decided to drop that.
> >
> > > I see that you did a PR review.  I'll try to look at it tonight and
> > > respond.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 4:23 PM sebb  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 20:00, Alex Remily 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I went ahead and submitted a PR related to this discussion.  The
> > > > dockerfile
> > > > > does a full build, minus the Mac, and should simplify the release
> > > > process.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure how it improves on the Docker build I derived from your
> > > > previous submission.
> > > >
> > > > Did you try the sebb-docker branch again after my last reply?
> > > > I think you must have used a different checkout when you reported the
> > > > failures.
> > > >
> > > > > Developers can easily modify as needed for their own purposes.  I
> > > > recommend
> > > > > removing the 32-bit Mac build profile from the POM, but have not
> > done so
> > > > in
> > > > > this PR.
> > > >
> > > > If it is removed from the POM then the Docker build will also need to
> > > > be updated.
> > > >
> > > > Whilst it is unlikely that the 32 bit builds will be needed, at
> > > > present they seem to work OK,
> > > > so they might as well be kept.
> > > >
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/commons-crypto/pull/166
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:24 AM sebb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 14:35, Alex Remily 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sebb,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I cloned your repo and ran the dockerfile.  Feedback:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Maven download link is broken.  It appears Apache updated to
> > > > 3.8.6 on
> > > > > > > the 17th.  I think the 3.6.3 build is less likely (although
> > still not
> > > > > > > certain--as you pointed out) to get overwritten.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My build uses 3.6.3, so I think you may have got the wrong checkout
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > 

Re: [CRYPTO] Updated docker build

[Alex Remily]

I went back and reviewed docker setup at your link:

https://github.com/apache/commons-crypto/tree/79374289bdd227b5b668039c9336cd10d9e3bf7c/src/docker

Nice work.  I agree that it's more flexible and provides the same
capability.  The instructions were straightforward and the end result was a
full build.  One can also experiment via the command line, which is nice.
A couple of comments.  The comments on lines 16-21 should be removed, as
you've provided updated instructions in the readme.  I recall that during
the last release process I recommended using 18.04 as the base image and
was overruled because of backwards compatibility concerns with the native
binaries.  I don't know that I share those concerns, but that was the
rationale for using the older base.

Otherwise, it seems ready to commit and close out 120 and 132.

Alex

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:52 PM sebb  wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 22:32, Alex Remily  wrote:
> >
> >  previous
> > submission.>
> >
> > Don't know that it's an "improvement", but a different approach.  I think
> > if we provide a dockerfile that builds every supported arch (minus the
> Mac)
> > developers could easily modify it by removing parts they don't want as
> > opposed to adding dependencies and builds for the parts that they do.
>
> That is the case with my version.
> The builds are in separate script files that can be easily edited.
> And if a build fails due to a source issue, it can just be repeated
> after changing the source.
> No need to rebuild the image.
> Also no need to export the generated output as it is created on the host.
>
> > Also, I think this approach makes it easier for the next release manager
> > because it declares all the necessary dependencies and performs the
> builds
> > in the proper order.
>
> AFAICT there is no ordering issue with my version apart from linux32
> which needs an extra install.
>
> >  The last release was something of a challenge because
> > a lot of corporate knowledge had been lost when the original developers
> > left.
>
> Indeed.
>
> There is some documentation in the src/docker/README file, but it
> could be expanded.
>
> >  you
> > must have used a different checkout when you reported the failures.>
> >
> > I got sidetracked.  Apologies.  I need to do that and provide feedback.
> I
> > don't see why we can't have both, as long as we document them.
>
> I see no reason to have both.
>
> >  > updated.>
> >
> > As of this PR, it's in the POM but not in the dockerfile.
>
> Sorry, you are right.
> I thought I saw '32-bit build' but it was actually '32-bit Mac build'.
> Oops.
> We have already decided to drop that.
>
> > I see that you did a PR review.  I'll try to look at it tonight and
> > respond.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 4:23 PM sebb  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 20:00, Alex Remily 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I went ahead and submitted a PR related to this discussion.  The
> > > dockerfile
> > > > does a full build, minus the Mac, and should simplify the release
> > > process.
> > >
> > > Not sure how it improves on the Docker build I derived from your
> > > previous submission.
> > >
> > > Did you try the sebb-docker branch again after my last reply?
> > > I think you must have used a different checkout when you reported the
> > > failures.
> > >
> > > > Developers can easily modify as needed for their own purposes.  I
> > > recommend
> > > > removing the 32-bit Mac build profile from the POM, but have not
> done so
> > > in
> > > > this PR.
> > >
> > > If it is removed from the POM then the Docker build will also need to
> > > be updated.
> > >
> > > Whilst it is unlikely that the 32 bit builds will be needed, at
> > > present they seem to work OK,
> > > so they might as well be kept.
> > >
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/commons-crypto/pull/166
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:24 AM sebb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 14:35, Alex Remily 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sebb,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I cloned your repo and ran the dockerfile.  Feedback:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Maven download link is broken.  It appears Apache updated to
> > > 3.8.6 on
> > > > > > the 17th.  I think the 3.6.3 build is less likely (although
> still not
> > > > > > certain--as you pointed out) to get overwritten.
> > > > >
> > > > > My build uses 3.6.3, so I think you may have got the wrong checkout
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/commons-crypto/blob/79374289bdd227b5b668039c9336cd10d9e3bf7c/src/docker/Dockerfile#L52
> > > > >
> > > > > > RUN wget
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://dlcdn.apache.org/maven/maven-3/3.8.5/binaries/apache-maven-3.8.5-bin.tar.gz
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I updated all the references to 3.6.3 and reran the build.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems there is a pathing issue on the container:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > [22/23] RUN VERSION=1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
> > > > > > 

Re: [CRYPTO] Updated docker build

[sebb]

I think there's an issue with all the existing Docker files.

They install both 64-bit and 32-bit packages.
This is fine if the output ends up in different directories (or if the
output is the same).

However that is definitely not the case for opensslconf.h.

At present the 64-bit version is also used for 32-bit builds; I don't
think that is correct.

This is easy enough to fix, however if there are other clashes, some
of the builds might be incorrect.
One way to fix that would be to provide separate Docker files for the
two architectures.
However that will require rather more disk space.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 00:20, Alex Remily  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Then I was definitely looking at the wrong version of your file.  I'll
> circle back and run it again.
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 5:52 PM sebb  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 22:32, Alex Remily  wrote:
> > >
> > >  > previous
> > > submission.>
> > >
> > > Don't know that it's an "improvement", but a different approach.  I think
> > > if we provide a dockerfile that builds every supported arch (minus the
> > Mac)
> > > developers could easily modify it by removing parts they don't want as
> > > opposed to adding dependencies and builds for the parts that they do.
> >
> > That is the case with my version.
> > The builds are in separate script files that can be easily edited.
> > And if a build fails due to a source issue, it can just be repeated
> > after changing the source.
> > No need to rebuild the image.
> > Also no need to export the generated output as it is created on the host.
> >
> > > Also, I think this approach makes it easier for the next release manager
> > > because it declares all the necessary dependencies and performs the
> > builds
> > > in the proper order.
> >
> > AFAICT there is no ordering issue with my version apart from linux32
> > which needs an extra install.
> >
> > >  The last release was something of a challenge because
> > > a lot of corporate knowledge had been lost when the original developers
> > > left.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > There is some documentation in the src/docker/README file, but it
> > could be expanded.
> >
> > >  > you
> > > must have used a different checkout when you reported the failures.>
> > >
> > > I got sidetracked.  Apologies.  I need to do that and provide feedback.
> > I
> > > don't see why we can't have both, as long as we document them.
> >
> > I see no reason to have both.
> >
> > >  > > updated.>
> > >
> > > As of this PR, it's in the POM but not in the dockerfile.
> >
> > Sorry, you are right.
> > I thought I saw '32-bit build' but it was actually '32-bit Mac build'.
> > Oops.
> > We have already decided to drop that.
> >
> > > I see that you did a PR review.  I'll try to look at it tonight and
> > > respond.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 4:23 PM sebb  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 20:00, Alex Remily 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I went ahead and submitted a PR related to this discussion.  The
> > > > dockerfile
> > > > > does a full build, minus the Mac, and should simplify the release
> > > > process.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure how it improves on the Docker build I derived from your
> > > > previous submission.
> > > >
> > > > Did you try the sebb-docker branch again after my last reply?
> > > > I think you must have used a different checkout when you reported the
> > > > failures.
> > > >
> > > > > Developers can easily modify as needed for their own purposes.  I
> > > > recommend
> > > > > removing the 32-bit Mac build profile from the POM, but have not
> > done so
> > > > in
> > > > > this PR.
> > > >
> > > > If it is removed from the POM then the Docker build will also need to
> > > > be updated.
> > > >
> > > > Whilst it is unlikely that the 32 bit builds will be needed, at
> > > > present they seem to work OK,
> > > > so they might as well be kept.
> > > >
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/commons-crypto/pull/166
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:24 AM sebb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 at 14:35, Alex Remily 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sebb,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I cloned your repo and ran the dockerfile.  Feedback:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Maven download link is broken.  It appears Apache updated to
> > > > 3.8.6 on
> > > > > > > the 17th.  I think the 3.6.3 build is less likely (although
> > still not
> > > > > > > certain--as you pointed out) to get overwritten.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My build uses 3.6.3, so I think you may have got the wrong checkout
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/commons-crypto/blob/79374289bdd227b5b668039c9336cd10d9e3bf7c/src/docker/Dockerfile#L52
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > RUN wget
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://dlcdn.apache.org/maven/maven-3/3.8.5/binaries/apache-maven-3.8.5-bin.tar.gz
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I updated all the references to 3.6.3 and reran the 

Re: Support for converting string to snake case.

[Gary Gregory]

Hard to say without seeing a PR. I expect that the code would support
generating foo_bar (for variables) as well as FOO_BAR (for constants).

Gary

Gary

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 07:38 Ratul Sharker 
wrote:

> Hi There,
>
> Good evening. Lately I was in need of an operation to convert a camel case
> string into a snake case string. Searching in google forwarded me to
> "org.apache.commons.text.CaseUtils" which has `toCamelCase(...)`.
>
> I want to contribute my implementation of `toSnakeCase(...)` similar to
> `toCamelCase(...)`. Does this add any value in `CaseUtils` ?
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Ratul Sharker
>

Re: [CANCELLED] [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Configuration 2.8 based on RC1

[Gary Gregory]

Please use 2.8.0, I've been using the 3 part version format for all recent
releases. I think it would be nice to follow this naming here.

Gary

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, 22:30 Matt Juntunen  wrote:

> Thanks, Bruno! I'm going to go ahead and cancel this vote so I can fix
> the README. I also noticed some inconsistency in the naming of the
> version. In some places I called it 2.8.0 and in others 2.8. I'm going
> to standardize on the shorter "2.8". RC2 should be out soon.
>
> Regards,
> Matt J
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 1:30 AM Bruno Kinoshita  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Matt,
> >
> > Inspected NOTICE, LICENSE, RELEASE-NOTES, and found no issues. Checked
> out
> > the tag, and `mvn clean test install site` passed with no errors.
> >
> > The README is still showing 2.7 in the download instructions. I **think**
> > one of the preparation steps uses a release-plugin goal that re-generates
> > this file with the correct version, but I could be wrong. Not sure if
> it's
> > a blocker?
> >
> > Another thing that I noticed, but probably just nit-picking; opening a
> zip
> > and a tar.gz file from dist/source folders each, and opening each file on
> > Ubuntu LTS, I think not all files are UTF-8 encoded. The
> RELEASE-NOTES.txt
> > fails to open on my Mousepad editor. It pops up an error dialogue that
> lets
> > me try to guess the encoding to open it. Not an issue for me as I think
> it
> > happens in other projects (I think CSV had a non-utf readme or release
> note
> > too).
> >
> > Site reports look great.
> >
> > Tested signatures from Maven and from dist area, found no issues.
> >
> > [x] +1 Release these artifacts (if the README issue is not a blocker)
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Bruno
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 at 16:34, Matt Juntunen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We have fixed quite a few bugs and added some significant enhancements
> > > since Apache Commons Configuration 2.7 was released, so I would like
> > > to release Apache Commons Configuration 2.8.
> > >
> > > Apache Commons Configuration 2.8 RC1 is available for review here:
> > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/configuration/2.8-RC1
> > > (svn revision 55235)
> > >
> > > The Git tag commons-configuration-2.8-RC1 commit for this RC is
> > > 01e1b40769f6dd5046c74f38c4c59cf4af5e37a1 which you can browse here:
> > >
> > >
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-configuration.git;a=commit;h=01e1b40769f6dd5046c74f38c4c59cf4af5e37a1
> > > You may checkout this tag using:
> > > git clone
> > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/commons-configuration.git
> > > --branch
> > >  >
> > > commons-configuration-2.8-RC1 commons-configuration-2.8-RC1
> > >
> > > Maven artifacts are here:
> > >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1589/org/apache/commons/commons-configuration2/2.8/
> > >
> > > These are the artifacts and their hashes:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8.jar=c54782ba1d6340ccf0e136c66281af7bfcf3a78235f4a2461b50a88351a6da4f463cb19ca49afb25ff82712c4f4f14985c9f960ea65213deb1ca5a9719dead38
> > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8-sources.jar=1e277840f25d6a89b8f9168b5dd174093db38807b13e080aa47d26ff35602e4f5e4d6cf8bece6780af6791befd2204ce25710a8cd8eea62eabe3b554ea96e28c
> > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8-tests.jar=e0ffd6379863426f8b3237dd3ee64f7345c8d2876a34b736ba5f653af1e7cd99a8a3825938c60f842599f0a43922bbb32d13ea7f0c624b8dce25edf0150c6496
> > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8-test-sources.jar=f8c88936f415ab8357c96a73f9cb318e805b6a2ae47a9de9b3176c68b1fc1f4ca8880baf9045381a29af3d858be1c3b38b9f7f9bafd700f648004b591327dc1d
> > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8-bin.tar.gz=061227c898cf9094e30feebcf71d2811eecb01951793f30a6afca4f11075e5789231956b3d92b2caa5d65a24aa835026527b7d8b7dc81b1743306a48cae67ce4
> > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8-bin.zip=47a05cf9bcfee4e5f96f7d23af463bbf56e3d044ba1ea5faaeddb34f7056ca6590e15c83738a79a46c5d5d22885d5bac7dd3930a69d21b6a05c6645f0bcc383e
> > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8-src.tar.gz=eed2b99ebba4320799f8a11fde59c180022fd93f4c7b2c597398929368c92cce6828b163976c47629a0edf8fbc0e86be5cdf3e5f01cc734dd08f716038df026f
> > >
> > >
> commons-configuration2-2.8-src.zip=321365d65479889d16e27db4e03c52cfd8a4241b0a6ef2fe1f39d07f5beed4d5d9fb09d4101de77769ef634b2f9bda46a9ba4baa706540de42605c8c1e401c8f
> > >
> > > I have tested this with 'mvn clean install site' using:
> > > ***
> > > Apache Maven 3.8.4 (9b656c72d54e5bacbed989b64718c159fe39b537)
> > > Maven home: /home/matt/tools/maven/apache-maven-3.8.4
> > > Java version: 1.8.0_322, vendor: Temurin, runtime:
> > > /home/matt/lang/java/jdk8u322-b06/jre
> > > Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: UTF-8
> > > OS name: "linux", version: "5.17.12-300.fc36.x86_64", arch: "amd64",
> > > family: "unix"
> > > ***
> > >
> > > Details of changes since 2.7 are in the release notes:
> > >
> > >
> 

Support for converting string to snake case.

[Ratul Sharker]

Hi There,

Good evening. Lately I was in need of an operation to convert a camel case
string into a snake case string. Searching in google forwarded me to
"org.apache.commons.text.CaseUtils" which has `toCamelCase(...)`.

I want to contribute my implementation of `toSnakeCase(...)` similar to
`toCamelCase(...)`. Does this add any value in `CaseUtils` ?

Please let me know your thoughts.


Thanks in advance,
Ratul Sharker