RE: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
Right, since there seems some community need for this, I'm not going to stand in its way. Thanks for working towards a release! Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm > -Original Message- > From: Niklas Gustavsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:27 AM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Rory Winston > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Niklas Gustavsson wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Oberhuber, Martin > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> The backward compatibility question you mention was about the > >>> suggestion to refactor the Commons Net "small protocol" > >>> implementations into separate packages each: > >>> > >> > >> Oh, that was not my understanding. But since there hasn't > been such a > >> change (besides to separate FTP client JAR) I guess we're > good to go > >> in this aspect. > > > > This change was done months ago (for 2.0 at least). > > Re-reading the thread I see that I completely misunderstood Martins > email. Rory is of course correct, for the clients listed by Niall > previously, they have been moved into their own packages. The same way > as the other clients, like FTP and SMTP did before. Now that Martin > seems fine with this change I guess we can go ahead. > > /niklas > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Niklas Gustavsson wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Oberhuber, Martin >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> The backward compatibility question you mention was about the >>> suggestion to refactor the Commons Net "small protocol" >>> implementations into separate packages each: >>> >> >> Oh, that was not my understanding. But since there hasn't been such a >> change (besides to separate FTP client JAR) I guess we're good to go >> in this aspect. > > This change was done months ago (for 2.0 at least). Re-reading the thread I see that I completely misunderstood Martins email. Rory is of course correct, for the clients listed by Niall previously, they have been moved into their own packages. The same way as the other clients, like FTP and SMTP did before. Now that Martin seems fine with this change I guess we can go ahead. /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
Niklas Gustavsson wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Oberhuber, Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The backward compatibility question you mention was about the suggestion to refactor the Commons Net "small protocol" implementations into separate packages each: Oh, that was not my understanding. But since there hasn't been such a change (besides to separate FTP client JAR) I guess we're good to go in this aspect. This change was done months ago (for 2.0 at least). Rory - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Oberhuber, Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The backward compatibility question you mention was about the > suggestion to refactor the Commons Net "small protocol" > implementations into separate packages each: Oh, that was not my understanding. But since there hasn't been such a change (besides to separate FTP client JAR) I guess we're good to go in this aspect. > I was not in favor of such a costly, breaking change which > doesn't buy much, so I'd vote for going forward towards > a release. Can you put up a release candidate? That's my plan unless someone objects. I'll have one up as soon as my home internet connection is back online *grumbles about lousy ISPs* /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
Thanks Niklas. The backward compatibility question you mention was about the suggestion to refactor the Commons Net "small protocol" implementations into separate packages each: > Basically there's no problem to deliver a > commons-net-2.0-legacy.jar that contains something along > > package org.apache.commons.net; > class Echo extends org.apache.commons.net.echo.Echo { ... }; > > > I'm all in favor of code cleanup and refactoring when > > I see clear advantages, but not at any price. I was not in favor of such a costly, breaking change which doesn't buy much, so I'd vote for going forward towards a release. Can you put up a release candidate? Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm > -Original Message- > From: Niklas Gustavsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 4:46 PM > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Niklas Gustavsson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Niklas Gustavsson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Rory Winston > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I meant to say "out of the project". It was moved to > test/ after the > >>> discussion. > >> > >> Great, so it seems we agree :-) However, the class is still in > >> src/main, not in src/test: > >> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/branches/NE > T_2_0/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/net/tftp/TFTPServer.java > >> > >> Should I move it to the test directory? > > > > If no one objects I'll go ahead and move it to src/test. > > Alright, better later than never I guess. As no one objected, I'll go > ahead and commit that change. > > Is there anything else that would be needed before a 2.0 release? > Previously in this thread there was some discussions around backward > compatibility, but no conclusion seems to been reached. Do we need to > discuss this further? > > /niklas > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I meant to say "out of the project". It was moved to test/ after the >>> discussion. >> >> Great, so it seems we agree :-) However, the class is still in >> src/main, not in src/test: >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/branches/NET_2_0/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/net/tftp/TFTPServer.java >> >> Should I move it to the test directory? > > If no one objects I'll go ahead and move it to src/test. Alright, better later than never I guess. As no one objected, I'll go ahead and commit that change. Is there anything else that would be needed before a 2.0 release? Previously in this thread there was some discussions around backward compatibility, but no conclusion seems to been reached. Do we need to discuss this further? /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I meant to say "out of the project". It was moved to test/ after the > discussion. Great, so it seems we agree :-) However, the class is still in src/main, not in src/test: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/net/branches/NET_2_0/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/net/tftp/TFTPServer.java Should I move it to the test directory? /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
Sorry Niklas I meant to say "out of the project". It was moved to test/ after the discussion. Rory Niklas Gustavsson wrote: On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We've had this discussion already (at great length). It's not going to test/src. Search through the archives, I managed to find a discussion on this very topic from March this year, however in the thread it seems like you agree on moving it to src/test: http://markmail.org/message/skzc77eccue7ukxx Maybe there has been additional discussions after that thread where there was a different conclusion? /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
Hi Jörg, Good point -- but in my environment (Eclipse), transitive Deps are a non-issue since OSGi provides multiple classloaders So I can live with ACN 1.5 and 2.0 at the same time even if They have mutually incompatible implementations of the same Class in the same namespace. I'd rather like to have the ability to choose ACN 1.5 or 2.0 when my app happens to use only such parts of the lib That happen to have changed in a non-breaking manner. I cannot see why moving to Java5 forces binary breaking Changes -- after all the Java5 collections can be called >From older Java too thanks to the concept of Erasures. Of course I'm not talking about forced backward compatibility In all cases. This is a major release, and it's one for good Reason. I'm just talking about not breaking compatibility Unless there is good reason for doing so. And refactoring those small protocol impls into separate Namespaces each is not a good reason IMHO. But perhaps Somebody could argue to convince me why this is a good And important thing? Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm > -Original Message- > From: Jörg Schaible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Mittwoch, 21. Mai 2008 07:55 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases > > Hi Martin, > > Oberhuber, Martin wrote: > > Hi Rory, > > > > Thanks for your opinion -- but may I note that even if > > It's a major releases, there may be (some|many) existing > > Clients which are not broken even if they upgrade, > > Depending on what APIs their client code currently uses. > > > > Breaking clients for no good reason just isn't playing > > Nice with the clients IMHO, although you are right that > > You do have the chance doing so in a major release. > > > > At any rate, I wouldn't call the discussion irrelevant. > > It is relevant for clients picking up commons net when > > They migrate from 1.x to 2.x, and depending on what > > The clients do and how many different ones there are, > > Even Eclipse Ctrl+Shift+O can sum up to a non-trivial > > Amount of total work on behalf of the clients. > > Basically there's no problem to deliver a > commons-net-2.0-legacy.jar that contains something along > > package org.apache.commons.net; > class Echo extends org.apache.commons.net.echo.Echo { ... }; > > > I'm all in favor of code cleanup and refactoring when > > I see clear advantages, but not at any price. > > > > For our FTP clients, I'd love to see customers being > > Able to exchange net 1.5 against net 2.0 pre-compiled > > Binaries in the final product if possible. > > However, this implies that ACN 1.x is binary compatible to > ACN 2.0. However that is simply neither guaranteed nor > enforced. If ACN 2.x makes usage of Java 5 you will see some > API breakage that prohibits 2.x to be used as drop in > replacement. That was simply not the goal of this design. > However that's the reason why *I* always recommend to use a > different package name for major releases with API breakage, > simply to ensure that both versions can be used at the same > time. Not that a client wants to do this, but he might be > forced to do so because of transitive deps. > > - Jörg > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We've had this discussion already (at great length). It's not going to > test/src. Search through the archives, I managed to find a discussion on this very topic from March this year, however in the thread it seems like you agree on moving it to src/test: http://markmail.org/message/skzc77eccue7ukxx Maybe there has been additional discussions after that thread where there was a different conclusion? /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
Hi Martin, Oberhuber, Martin wrote: > Hi Rory, > > Thanks for your opinion -- but may I note that even if > It's a major releases, there may be (some|many) existing > Clients which are not broken even if they upgrade, > Depending on what APIs their client code currently uses. > > Breaking clients for no good reason just isn't playing > Nice with the clients IMHO, although you are right that > You do have the chance doing so in a major release. > > At any rate, I wouldn't call the discussion irrelevant. > It is relevant for clients picking up commons net when > They migrate from 1.x to 2.x, and depending on what > The clients do and how many different ones there are, > Even Eclipse Ctrl+Shift+O can sum up to a non-trivial > Amount of total work on behalf of the clients. Basically there's no problem to deliver a commons-net-2.0-legacy.jar that contains something along package org.apache.commons.net; class Echo extends org.apache.commons.net.echo.Echo { ... }; > I'm all in favor of code cleanup and refactoring when > I see clear advantages, but not at any price. > > For our FTP clients, I'd love to see customers being > Able to exchange net 1.5 against net 2.0 pre-compiled > Binaries in the final product if possible. However, this implies that ACN 1.x is binary compatible to ACN 2.0. However that is simply neither guaranteed nor enforced. If ACN 2.x makes usage of Java 5 you will see some API breakage that prohibits 2.x to be used as drop in replacement. That was simply not the goal of this design. However that's the reason why *I* always recommend to use a different package name for major releases with API breakage, simply to ensure that both versions can be used at the same time. Not that a client wants to do this, but he might be forced to do so because of transitive deps. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
Hi Rory, Thanks for your opinion -- but may I note that even if It's a major releases, there may be (some|many) existing Clients which are not broken even if they upgrade, Depending on what APIs their client code currently uses. Breaking clients for no good reason just isn't playing Nice with the clients IMHO, although you are right that You do have the chance doing so in a major release. At any rate, I wouldn't call the discussion irrelevant. It is relevant for clients picking up commons net when They migrate from 1.x to 2.x, and depending on what The clients do and how many different ones there are, Even Eclipse Ctrl+Shift+O can sum up to a non-trivial Amount of total work on behalf of the clients. I'm all in favor of code cleanup and refactoring when I see clear advantages, but not at any price. For our FTP clients, I'd love to see customers being Able to exchange net 1.5 against net 2.0 pre-compiled Binaries in the final product if possible. Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm > -Original Message- > From: Rory Winston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Mittwoch, 21. Mai 2008 00:57 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases > > Can I just add, it's a major release (1.5 -> 2.0). > > > Rory Winston wrote: > > This is totally irrelevant. It's called refactoring. > > > > > > Oberhuber, Martin wrote: > >> I agree that I cannot see a strong argument for such a > >> Breaking change. In general, binary backward compatibility > >> For a lib with such a wide distribution should be maintained > >> If there are no strong arguments against maintaining it. > >> > >> In this case, it looks like the various clients are small > >> Enough to live in a single package. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> -- > >> Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River > >> Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member > >> http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: Rory Winston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: > Montag, 19. > >>> Mai 2008 23:19 > >>> To: Commons Developers List > >>> Subject: Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases > >>> > >>> I think this was just a logical reorganization of the > source code. A > >>> lot of stuff was bundled in together that probably should > have been > >>> in separate packages for clarity in the first place. I dont think > >>> these classes are widely used at all. If they are, its a pretty > >>> simple matter to fix (CTRL+SHIFT+O in Eclipse will fix it > instantly, > >>> for instance). > >>> > >>> Rory > >>> > >>> Niall Pemberton wrote: > >>> > >>>> >From a quick scan of Net 2.0 the there has been the following > >>>> re-organization in Net 2.0: > >>>> > >>>> o.a.c.n.CharGenTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.chargen package > >>>> o.a.c.n.CharGenUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.chargen package > >>>> o.a.c.n.DaytimeTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.daytime package > >>>> o.a.c.n.DaytimeUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.daytime package > >>>> o.a.c.n.DiscardTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.discard package > >>>> o.a.c.n.DiscardUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.discard package > >>>> o.a.c.n.EchoTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.echo package > >>>> o.a.c.n.EchoUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.echo package > >>>> o.a.c.n.FingerClient moved to o.a.c.n.finger package > >>>> o.a.c.n.TimeTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.time package > >>>> o.a.c.n.TimeUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.time package > >>>> o.a.c.n.WhoisClient moved to o.a.c.n.whois package > >>>> > >>>> Are these package moves necessary - looks like were just going to > >>>> inflict unecessary pain on the users? If the Net devs > still > >>> think its > >>> > >>>> a good idea, then it would provide users with an upgrade > path if the > >>>> the new packages are added in Net 1.5 and the old classes > >>> with the old > >>> > >>>> package names deprecated. > >>>> > >>>> Niall > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Niklas Gustavsson > >>>
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
Can I just add, it's a major release (1.5 -> 2.0). Rory Winston wrote: This is totally irrelevant. It's called refactoring. Oberhuber, Martin wrote: I agree that I cannot see a strong argument for such a Breaking change. In general, binary backward compatibility For a lib with such a wide distribution should be maintained If there are no strong arguments against maintaining it. In this case, it looks like the various clients are small Enough to live in a single package. Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm -Original Message- From: Rory Winston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Montag, 19. Mai 2008 23:19 To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases I think this was just a logical reorganization of the source code. A lot of stuff was bundled in together that probably should have been in separate packages for clarity in the first place. I dont think these classes are widely used at all. If they are, its a pretty simple matter to fix (CTRL+SHIFT+O in Eclipse will fix it instantly, for instance). Rory Niall Pemberton wrote: >From a quick scan of Net 2.0 the there has been the following re-organization in Net 2.0: o.a.c.n.CharGenTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.chargen package o.a.c.n.CharGenUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.chargen package o.a.c.n.DaytimeTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.daytime package o.a.c.n.DaytimeUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.daytime package o.a.c.n.DiscardTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.discard package o.a.c.n.DiscardUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.discard package o.a.c.n.EchoTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.echo package o.a.c.n.EchoUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.echo package o.a.c.n.FingerClient moved to o.a.c.n.finger package o.a.c.n.TimeTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.time package o.a.c.n.TimeUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.time package o.a.c.n.WhoisClient moved to o.a.c.n.whois package Are these package moves necessary - looks like were just going to inflict unecessary pain on the users? If the Net devs still think its a good idea, then it would provide users with an upgrade path if the the new packages are added in Net 1.5 and the old classes with the old package names deprecated. Niall On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would prefer to get 2.0 out there as well. I would rather see us be fixing bugs as found by users than keeping it around for even longer in the current state. It's time to get it out there. /niklas On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:35 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think 1.5 is closer to being ready for a release than 2.0. Given that any bugs that are found in 1.5 are probably going to be present in 2.0 as well, I would like to suggest that 1.5 is released first, and 2.0 after there has been some time for people to use 1.5 in earnest. Are there any JIRA issues which still need to be fixed for 1.5? On 17/05/2008, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin/Sebb Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with where we're at. Rory Oberhuber, Martin wrote: Hi all, just wondering, what's currently holding off a release of Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0? Many issues have been sorted out after the last release candidates, when can we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything particular that I could help with? Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
We've had this discussion already (at great length). It's not going to test/src. Niklas Gustavsson wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:36 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Would you be able to try the patches I just attached to NET-220? That should be enough to make the TFTPServer class threadsafe, and may address the shutdown problem. Didn't help with the issue I'm seeing. When on the topic of TFTPServer, I have to agree with James Carmans on that it's out of scope for commons-net and should be moved to src/test/java. I'll commit my fix with using unique port numbers for now. /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
This is totally irrelevant. It's called refactoring. Oberhuber, Martin wrote: I agree that I cannot see a strong argument for such a Breaking change. In general, binary backward compatibility For a lib with such a wide distribution should be maintained If there are no strong arguments against maintaining it. In this case, it looks like the various clients are small Enough to live in a single package. Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm -Original Message- From: Rory Winston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Montag, 19. Mai 2008 23:19 To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases I think this was just a logical reorganization of the source code. A lot of stuff was bundled in together that probably should have been in separate packages for clarity in the first place. I dont think these classes are widely used at all. If they are, its a pretty simple matter to fix (CTRL+SHIFT+O in Eclipse will fix it instantly, for instance). Rory Niall Pemberton wrote: >From a quick scan of Net 2.0 the there has been the following re-organization in Net 2.0: o.a.c.n.CharGenTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.chargen package o.a.c.n.CharGenUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.chargen package o.a.c.n.DaytimeTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.daytime package o.a.c.n.DaytimeUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.daytime package o.a.c.n.DiscardTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.discard package o.a.c.n.DiscardUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.discard package o.a.c.n.EchoTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.echo package o.a.c.n.EchoUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.echo package o.a.c.n.FingerClient moved to o.a.c.n.finger package o.a.c.n.TimeTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.time package o.a.c.n.TimeUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.time package o.a.c.n.WhoisClient moved to o.a.c.n.whois package Are these package moves necessary - looks like were just going to inflict unecessary pain on the users? If the Net devs still think its a good idea, then it would provide users with an upgrade path if the the new packages are added in Net 1.5 and the old classes with the old package names deprecated. Niall On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would prefer to get 2.0 out there as well. I would rather see us be fixing bugs as found by users than keeping it around for even longer in the current state. It's time to get it out there. /niklas On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:35 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think 1.5 is closer to being ready for a release than 2.0. Given that any bugs that are found in 1.5 are probably going to be present in 2.0 as well, I would like to suggest that 1.5 is released first, and 2.0 after there has been some time for people to use 1.5 in earnest. Are there any JIRA issues which still need to be fixed for 1.5? On 17/05/2008, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin/Sebb Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with where we're at. Rory Oberhuber, Martin wrote: Hi all, just wondering, what's currently holding off a release of Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0? Many issues have been sorted out after the last release candidates, when can we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything particular that I could help with? Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On 20/05/2008, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:36 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would you be able to try the patches I just attached to NET-220? > > > > That should be enough to make the TFTPServer class threadsafe, and may > > address the shutdown problem. > > > Didn't help with the issue I'm seeing. > OK, thanks for trying. But presumbly it did not make things worse? > When on the topic of TFTPServer, I have to agree with James Carmans on > that it's out of scope for commons-net and should be moved to > src/test/java. > > I'll commit my fix with using unique port numbers for now. Not sure I agree with that - it's just ignoring the problem. Unless it can be shown that it is due to a bug in Java on Ubuntu, then I think the problem really needs to be fixed before releasing 2.0. > > /niklas > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:36 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would you be able to try the patches I just attached to NET-220? > > That should be enough to make the TFTPServer class threadsafe, and may > address the shutdown problem. Didn't help with the issue I'm seeing. When on the topic of TFTPServer, I have to agree with James Carmans on that it's out of scope for commons-net and should be moved to src/test/java. I'll commit my fix with using unique port numbers for now. /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
I agree that I cannot see a strong argument for such a Breaking change. In general, binary backward compatibility For a lib with such a wide distribution should be maintained If there are no strong arguments against maintaining it. In this case, it looks like the various clients are small Enough to live in a single package. Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm > -Original Message- > From: Rory Winston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Montag, 19. Mai 2008 23:19 > To: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases > > I think this was just a logical reorganization of the source > code. A lot > of stuff was bundled in together that probably should have been in > separate packages for clarity in the first place. I dont think these > classes are widely used at all. If they are, its a pretty > simple matter > to fix (CTRL+SHIFT+O in Eclipse will fix it instantly, for instance). > > Rory > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > >From a quick scan of Net 2.0 the there has been the following > > re-organization in Net 2.0: > > > > o.a.c.n.CharGenTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.chargen package > > o.a.c.n.CharGenUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.chargen package > > o.a.c.n.DaytimeTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.daytime package > > o.a.c.n.DaytimeUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.daytime package > > o.a.c.n.DiscardTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.discard package > > o.a.c.n.DiscardUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.discard package > > o.a.c.n.EchoTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.echo package > > o.a.c.n.EchoUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.echo package > > o.a.c.n.FingerClient moved to o.a.c.n.finger package > > o.a.c.n.TimeTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.time package > > o.a.c.n.TimeUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.time package > > o.a.c.n.WhoisClient moved to o.a.c.n.whois package > > > > Are these package moves necessary - looks like were just going to > > inflict unecessary pain on the users? If the Net devs still > think its > > a good idea, then it would provide users with an upgrade path if the > > the new packages are added in Net 1.5 and the old classes > with the old > > package names deprecated. > > > > Niall > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Niklas Gustavsson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I would prefer to get 2.0 out there as well. I would > rather see us be > >> fixing bugs as found by users than keeping it around for > even longer > >> in the current state. It's time to get it out there. > >> > >> /niklas > >> > >> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:35 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> I think 1.5 is closer to being ready for a release than 2.0. > >>> > >>> Given that any bugs that are found in 1.5 are probably going to be > >>> present in 2.0 as well, I would like to suggest that 1.5 > is released > >>> first, and 2.0 after there has been some time for people > to use 1.5 in > >>> earnest. > >>> > >>> Are there any JIRA issues which still need to be fixed for 1.5? > >>> > >>> > >>> On 17/05/2008, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Martin/Sebb > >>>> > >>>> Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys > are happy with > >>>> where we're at. > >>>> > >>>> Rory > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Oberhuber, Martin wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> just wondering, what's currently holding off a release > of Commons Net > >>>>> 1.5 / 2.0? > >>>>> Many issues have been sorted out after the last > release candidates, when > >>>>> can > >>>>> we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything > particular that I could > >>>>> help > >>>>> with? > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River > >>>>> Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member > >>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> >
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
I think this was just a logical reorganization of the source code. A lot of stuff was bundled in together that probably should have been in separate packages for clarity in the first place. I dont think these classes are widely used at all. If they are, its a pretty simple matter to fix (CTRL+SHIFT+O in Eclipse will fix it instantly, for instance). Rory Niall Pemberton wrote: >From a quick scan of Net 2.0 the there has been the following re-organization in Net 2.0: o.a.c.n.CharGenTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.chargen package o.a.c.n.CharGenUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.chargen package o.a.c.n.DaytimeTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.daytime package o.a.c.n.DaytimeUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.daytime package o.a.c.n.DiscardTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.discard package o.a.c.n.DiscardUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.discard package o.a.c.n.EchoTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.echo package o.a.c.n.EchoUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.echo package o.a.c.n.FingerClient moved to o.a.c.n.finger package o.a.c.n.TimeTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.time package o.a.c.n.TimeUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.time package o.a.c.n.WhoisClient moved to o.a.c.n.whois package Are these package moves necessary - looks like were just going to inflict unecessary pain on the users? If the Net devs still think its a good idea, then it would provide users with an upgrade path if the the new packages are added in Net 1.5 and the old classes with the old package names deprecated. Niall On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would prefer to get 2.0 out there as well. I would rather see us be fixing bugs as found by users than keeping it around for even longer in the current state. It's time to get it out there. /niklas On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:35 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think 1.5 is closer to being ready for a release than 2.0. Given that any bugs that are found in 1.5 are probably going to be present in 2.0 as well, I would like to suggest that 1.5 is released first, and 2.0 after there has been some time for people to use 1.5 in earnest. Are there any JIRA issues which still need to be fixed for 1.5? On 17/05/2008, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin/Sebb Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with where we're at. Rory Oberhuber, Martin wrote: Hi all, just wondering, what's currently holding off a release of Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0? Many issues have been sorted out after the last release candidates, when can we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything particular that I could help with? Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
>From a quick scan of Net 2.0 the there has been the following re-organization in Net 2.0: o.a.c.n.CharGenTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.chargen package o.a.c.n.CharGenUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.chargen package o.a.c.n.DaytimeTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.daytime package o.a.c.n.DaytimeUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.daytime package o.a.c.n.DiscardTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.discard package o.a.c.n.DiscardUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.discard package o.a.c.n.EchoTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.echo package o.a.c.n.EchoUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.echo package o.a.c.n.FingerClient moved to o.a.c.n.finger package o.a.c.n.TimeTCPClient moved to o.a.c.n.time package o.a.c.n.TimeUDPClient moved to o.a.c.n.time package o.a.c.n.WhoisClient moved to o.a.c.n.whois package Are these package moves necessary - looks like were just going to inflict unecessary pain on the users? If the Net devs still think its a good idea, then it would provide users with an upgrade path if the the new packages are added in Net 1.5 and the old classes with the old package names deprecated. Niall On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would prefer to get 2.0 out there as well. I would rather see us be > fixing bugs as found by users than keeping it around for even longer > in the current state. It's time to get it out there. > > /niklas > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:35 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think 1.5 is closer to being ready for a release than 2.0. >> >> Given that any bugs that are found in 1.5 are probably going to be >> present in 2.0 as well, I would like to suggest that 1.5 is released >> first, and 2.0 after there has been some time for people to use 1.5 in >> earnest. >> >> Are there any JIRA issues which still need to be fixed for 1.5? >> >> >> On 17/05/2008, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Martin/Sebb >>> >>> Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with >>> where we're at. >>> >>> Rory >>> >>> >>> Oberhuber, Martin wrote: >>> >>> > Hi all, >>> > just wondering, what's currently holding off a release of Commons Net >>> > 1.5 / 2.0? >>> > Many issues have been sorted out after the last release candidates, when >>> > can >>> > we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything particular that I could >>> > help >>> > with? >>> > Cheers, >>> > -- >>> > Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River >>> > Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member >>> > http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
>Niklas, I dont see anything wrong with using unique ports for the TFTP JUnit tests - feel free to commit to the 2.0 branch. That is, unless Sebb's changes fix the issue. Rory Rory Winston wrote: Hi guys Re: the original vote thread, these issues have all been resolved (a number of people pitched in and helped in various ways), so I think we may be ready to cut another release. I would also be very keen to just get it out there and fix bugs if and as occur. Theres nothing approaching a blocker severity in there right now. Niklas, I dont see anything wrong with using unique ports for the TFTP JUnit tests - feel free to commit to the 2.0 branch. Sebb has applied the patches for the VMS permissioning (which was the only other significant enhancement outstanding for these releases). I think we're good to go. Rory Niklas Gustavsson wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/19/08, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would prefer to get 2.0 out there as well. I would rather see us be fixing bugs as found by users than keeping it around for even longer in the current state. It's time to get it out there. See previous comments on the topic: http://markmail.org/message/cxyqwzwfsu3xfu4e Yeah, the issues that are highlighted in that thread must obviously be fixed. From the thread I understand that Rory already seem to have addressed some of them. Maybe we need to go through them and verify that that is the case. /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
Hi guys Re: the original vote thread, these issues have all been resolved (a number of people pitched in and helped in various ways), so I think we may be ready to cut another release. I would also be very keen to just get it out there and fix bugs if and as occur. Theres nothing approaching a blocker severity in there right now. Niklas, I dont see anything wrong with using unique ports for the TFTP JUnit tests - feel free to commit to the 2.0 branch. Sebb has applied the patches for the VMS permissioning (which was the only other significant enhancement outstanding for these releases). I think we're good to go. Rory Niklas Gustavsson wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/19/08, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would prefer to get 2.0 out there as well. I would rather see us be fixing bugs as found by users than keeping it around for even longer in the current state. It's time to get it out there. See previous comments on the topic: http://markmail.org/message/cxyqwzwfsu3xfu4e Yeah, the issues that are highlighted in that thread must obviously be fixed. From the thread I understand that Rory already seem to have addressed some of them. Maybe we need to go through them and verify that that is the case. /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/19/08, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I would prefer to get 2.0 out there as well. I would rather see us be >> fixing bugs as found by users than keeping it around for even longer >> in the current state. It's time to get it out there. >> > > > See previous comments on the topic: > > http://markmail.org/message/cxyqwzwfsu3xfu4e Yeah, the issues that are highlighted in that thread must obviously be fixed. From the thread I understand that Rory already seem to have addressed some of them. Maybe we need to go through them and verify that that is the case. /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On 5/19/08, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would prefer to get 2.0 out there as well. I would rather see us be > fixing bugs as found by users than keeping it around for even longer > in the current state. It's time to get it out there. > See previous comments on the topic: http://markmail.org/message/cxyqwzwfsu3xfu4e -Rahul > > /niklas > > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:35 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think 1.5 is closer to being ready for a release than 2.0. > > > > Given that any bugs that are found in 1.5 are probably going to be > > present in 2.0 as well, I would like to suggest that 1.5 is released > > first, and 2.0 after there has been some time for people to use 1.5 in > > earnest. > > > > Are there any JIRA issues which still need to be fixed for 1.5? > > > > > > On 17/05/2008, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Martin/Sebb > >> > >> Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with > >> where we're at. > >> > >> Rory > >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On 19/05/2008, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:29 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think I saw the same error, but only once, so I assumed it was > > something else happening on my system. > > > > If it's occurring regularly, then there may be a problem with > > releasing the port from previous tests in the same class. > > > Yeah, I get it every time I build in Maven. That's on my Ubuntu system. > Would you be able to try the patches I just attached to NET-220? That should be enough to make the TFTPServer class threadsafe, and may address the shutdown problem. > /niklas > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:29 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I saw the same error, but only once, so I assumed it was > something else happening on my system. > > If it's occurring regularly, then there may be a problem with > releasing the port from previous tests in the same class. Yeah, I get it every time I build in Maven. That's on my Ubuntu system. /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
I would prefer to get 2.0 out there as well. I would rather see us be fixing bugs as found by users than keeping it around for even longer in the current state. It's time to get it out there. /niklas On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:35 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think 1.5 is closer to being ready for a release than 2.0. > > Given that any bugs that are found in 1.5 are probably going to be > present in 2.0 as well, I would like to suggest that 1.5 is released > first, and 2.0 after there has been some time for people to use 1.5 in > earnest. > > Are there any JIRA issues which still need to be fixed for 1.5? > > > On 17/05/2008, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Martin/Sebb >> >> Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with >> where we're at. >> >> Rory >> >> >> Oberhuber, Martin wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > just wondering, what's currently holding off a release of Commons Net >> > 1.5 / 2.0? >> > Many issues have been sorted out after the last release candidates, when >> > can >> > we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything particular that I could >> > help >> > with? >> > Cheers, >> > -- >> > Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River >> > Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member >> > http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
I think 1.5 is closer to being ready for a release than 2.0. Given that any bugs that are found in 1.5 are probably going to be present in 2.0 as well, I would like to suggest that 1.5 is released first, and 2.0 after there has been some time for people to use 1.5 in earnest. Are there any JIRA issues which still need to be fixed for 1.5? On 17/05/2008, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin/Sebb > > Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with > where we're at. > > Rory > > > Oberhuber, Martin wrote: > > > Hi all, > > just wondering, what's currently holding off a release of Commons Net > > 1.5 / 2.0? > > Many issues have been sorted out after the last release candidates, when > > can > > we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything particular that I could > > help > > with? > > Cheers, > > -- > > Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River > > Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member > > http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm > > > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On 19/05/2008, Niklas Gustavsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with > where > > we're at. > > > I still got this issue: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NET-217 > > I haven't look into any depth at why it's happening, but changing the > test to using unique ports for each of the tests (6900, 6901, 6902...) > make JUnit all happy. Should I commit this fix? With it, I would be > happy to see 2.0 released. I think I saw the same error, but only once, so I assumed it was something else happening on my system. If it's occurring regularly, then there may be a problem with releasing the port from previous tests in the same class. However, I have just seen a problem in the TFTPServer code - the constructors call launch() which creates a new thread and starts it. This is not thread-safe, as the class is not guaranteed to be fully constructed until after the constructor has completed. There are some other thread-safety problems too; I'll raise a JIRA. I don't know if it relates to the test failure or not - I suppose the unsafe constructor could mean that shutdown does not happen reliably. > > > /niklas > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with where > we're at. I still got this issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NET-217 I haven't look into any depth at why it's happening, but changing the test to using unique ports for each of the tests (6900, 6901, 6902...) make JUnit all happy. Should I commit this fix? With it, I would be happy to see 2.0 released. /niklas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On 5/17/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Martin/Sebb > > > > Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with > where > > we're at. > > > I just ran the build on both the trunk and net 2 branch - all looks > good - the only thing I noticed is for 1.5/trunk the clirr report is > now highlighting the changes[1][2] to make some fields final: > http://people.apache.org/~niallp/net/clirr-report.html > > Personally I think this is OK since the fact those were not final > originally was a mistake. > A highly conspicuous note about this somewhere towards the beginning of the release notes would be good to have. -Rahul > [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=636917 > [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=636919 > > > Niall > > > > Rory > > > > Oberhuber, Martin wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> just wondering, what's currently holding off a release of Commons Net > >> 1.5 / 2.0? > >> Many issues have been sorted out after the last release candidates, when > >> can > >> we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything particular that I could > >> help > >> with? > >> Cheers, > >> -- > >> Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River > >> Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member > >> http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm > >> > >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
Great! Thanks for the feedback, Niall. Cheers Rory Niall Pemberton wrote: On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin/Sebb Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with where we're at. I just ran the build on both the trunk and net 2 branch - all looks good - the only thing I noticed is for 1.5/trunk the clirr report is now highlighting the changes[1][2] to make some fields final: http://people.apache.org/~niallp/net/clirr-report.html Personally I think this is OK since the fact those were not final originally was a mistake. [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=636917 [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=636919 Niall Rory Oberhuber, Martin wrote: Hi all, just wondering, what's currently holding off a release of Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0? Many issues have been sorted out after the last release candidates, when can we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything particular that I could help with? Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Rory Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin/Sebb > > Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with where > we're at. I just ran the build on both the trunk and net 2 branch - all looks good - the only thing I noticed is for 1.5/trunk the clirr report is now highlighting the changes[1][2] to make some fields final: http://people.apache.org/~niallp/net/clirr-report.html Personally I think this is OK since the fact those were not final originally was a mistake. [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=636917 [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=636919 Niall > Rory > > Oberhuber, Martin wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> just wondering, what's currently holding off a release of Commons Net >> 1.5 / 2.0? >> Many issues have been sorted out after the last release candidates, when >> can >> we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything particular that I could >> help >> with? >> Cheers, >> -- >> Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River >> Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member >> http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm >> >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
Martin/Sebb Are we ready to cut another RC? I can do so if you guys are happy with where we're at. Rory Oberhuber, Martin wrote: Hi all, just wondering, what's currently holding off a release of Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0? Many issues have been sorted out after the last release candidates, when can we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything particular that I could help with? Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0 Releases
Hi all, just wondering, what's currently holding off a release of Commons Net 1.5 / 2.0? Many issues have been sorted out after the last release candidates, when can we expect a new RC to review? Is there anything particular that I could help with? Cheers, -- Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm