Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Gary Gregory]

The code could be made better by fixing bug reported in JIRA...

Gary

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:41 PM,  wrote:

>
> Yes, that's mentioned  in my previous mail, I was also curious to know from
> the C developers here in dev-list that how can we make *that* C code
> better? basically I'm looking findbug, checkstyle, jococo, junit
>  *equivalent* for C code.
>
> CodeSentry provide a cloud version for scanning opensource projects.
> Otherwise with cppcheck allows you to check for bugs
>
> Best Regards,
> Giorgio,
>

RE: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[giorgio.zoppi]

Yes, that's mentioned  in my previous mail, I was also curious to know from
the C developers here in dev-list that how can we make *that* C code
better? basically I'm looking findbug, checkstyle, jococo, junit
 *equivalent* for C code.

CodeSentry provide a cloud version for scanning opensource projects.
Otherwise with cppcheck allows you to check for bugs

Best Regards,
Giorgio,

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Gary Gregory]

At thus point I would like to see:
- A release
- Go through JIRA and fix issues
- A release

We can update to Java 6 to allow the project to be built by Java 9 at any
time, no big deal IMO. Crud, the oldest Java I have installed is Java 6.
Hm, I'll push out Java 6 as the req and get that out of the way.

Gary


On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Simon Spero  wrote:

> On Jul 16, 2017 11:49 AM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:
>
> C quality somewhat depends on which version of C you're trying to remain
> compatible with (I'm guessing C89 due to Windows, though I could be wrong).
> Valgrind and other tracing tools are typically used.
>
>
> Valgrind is a default choice (though then you still have plenty of
> configuration choices to make :)
>
> A similar set of functionality is available using the various sanitizers
> available in clang (and recent versions of gcc, though I haven't tried
> that). These are described in the clang user manual:
>
> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#controlling-code-generation
>
> Clang also supports static analysis, which can, um, detect errors
> statically. This can sometimes generate a bunch of false positives,
> depending on the coding  style. The analyzer typically produces an html
> report.  These analyzers can be run using scan build.
>
> There are quite a lot more static analyzers available via clang-tidy, which
> may or  may not  require installing an extra package.
>
> CppUnit is a sensible choice for unit tests, but does require that tests be
> written in C++, which might be a problem if you are sent back in time (tip:
> write to Bjarne at AT Bell Laboratories, and ask for a tape).
>

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Simon Spero]

On Jul 16, 2017 11:49 AM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:

C quality somewhat depends on which version of C you're trying to remain
compatible with (I'm guessing C89 due to Windows, though I could be wrong).
Valgrind and other tracing tools are typically used.


Valgrind is a default choice (though then you still have plenty of
configuration choices to make :)

A similar set of functionality is available using the various sanitizers
available in clang (and recent versions of gcc, though I haven't tried
that). These are described in the clang user manual:

http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#controlling-code-generation

Clang also supports static analysis, which can, um, detect errors
statically. This can sometimes generate a bunch of false positives,
depending on the coding  style. The analyzer typically produces an html
report.  These analyzers can be run using scan build.

There are quite a lot more static analyzers available via clang-tidy, which
may or  may not  require installing an extra package.

CppUnit is a sensible choice for unit tests, but does require that tests be
written in C++, which might be a problem if you are sent back in time (tip:
write to Bjarne at AT Bell Laboratories, and ask for a tape).

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Gary Gregory]

There is no fixed process to determine when it is releases time. Sometimes
a component has momentum and a release manager is picked and leads the way,
sometimes a committer needs a release and volunteers to manage a release.

Gary

On Jul 17, 2017 06:00, "Amey Jadiye"  wrote:

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

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Amey Jadiye]

Hi Gary,

I will take a look at pending issues if something is blocker to release, I
see already 9 issues are done for 1.1.0 release .  if we are ok with these
9, anyone can release it. BTW how do you guys decide that "this is a time
to release!"  for any component ?

Regards,
Amey

On Jul 16, 2017 10:38 PM, "Gary Gregory"  wrote:

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

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Gary Gregory]

If someone here is really going to put time and energy into daemon, it
would be fantastic to start with a release. It's been so long...  Then
fiddle away on tweaks, and release again.

Gary

On Jul 16, 2017 08:49, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:

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

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Matt Sicker]

C quality somewhat depends on which version of C you're trying to remain
compatible with (I'm guessing C89 due to Windows, though I could be wrong).
Valgrind and other tracing tools are typically used. I'd take a look at
what OpenOffice is doing for local examples (though they have a crazy build
system last I heard), or the FSF, Linux, Xorg, FreeDesktop, GNOME, KDE, or
other major users of C and C++.

On the modern front, it'd be interesting if it were written in Rust, though
I don't know enough about the language to say if it's worth porting to
eventually.

On 15 July 2017 at 09:26, sebb  wrote:

> On 15 July 2017 at 15:21, Amey Jadiye  wrote:
> > Yes, that's mentioned  in my previous mail, I was also curious to know
> from
> > the C developers here in dev-list that how can we make *that* C code
> > better? basically I'm looking findbug, checkstyle, jococo, junit
> >  *equivalent* for C code.
>
> No idea on automated tools.
> However when I last looked there was plenty of scope for better
> documentation.
>
> Also I did wonder if the Prunmgr GUI might be better coded as a
> (mainly) Java application.
>
> The procrun stuff has to remain as C.
>
> > Regards,
> > Amey
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:44 PM, sebb  wrote:
> >
> >> Also note that there is hardly any Java code; most of it is written in
> C.
> >>
> >> On 14 July 2017 at 00:43, Gary Gregory  wrote:
> >> > It seems OK to me to update to Java 6 for now and get this to compile
> >> under
> >> > java 9 for those folks who will try...
> >> >
> >> > Gary
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Amey Jadiye 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Thanks for great insights Mark.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 9:28 PM Mark Thomas  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On 12 July 2017 16:33:01 CEST, Matt Sicker 
> wrote:
> >> >> > >Are there plans to require 1.7 for Tomcat anytime? Otherwise, it
> >> might
> >> >> > >be
> >> >> > >necessary to make a new major version of daemon eventually for
> Java 8
> >> >> > >or 9.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tomcat major versions are aligned with Java EE versions which in
> turn
> >> >> have
> >> >> > a minimum Java version.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tomcat supports 3 current versions in parallel so we currently
> have:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tomcat 9 - Java EE 8 - Java 8
> >> >> > Tomcat 8 - Java EE 7 - Java 7
> >> >> > Tomcat 7 - Java EE 6 - Java 6
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tomcat 7 support will continue until at least Java EE 9 is
> released.
> >> That
> >> >> > is meant to be next year but there are no firm dates yet and
> >> experience
> >> >> > suggests the Java EE 9 release date will slip.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On that basis I expect Tomcat to need a Daemon that supports Java 6
> >> for
> >> >> at
> >> >> > least 2 more years.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Is there a user requirement driving an increase in the minimum Java
> >> >> > version? If not, I suggest we stick with 6 for now.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> There is no user requirement , Commons daemon is still keeping
> minimum
> >> >> dependency on java 1.5, we were thinking to move on minimum 1.6,
> nice to
> >> >> hear there won't be any issue with tomcat since it's already on 1.6
> >> >>
> >> >> For moving to much higher i.e. java 1.7 I'm sure daemon will take
> >> another
> >> >> 2-3 year for keeping stability across projects.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Amey
> >> >>
> >> >> Mark
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >Anyways, 1.6 minimum makes sense to me mainly due to Java 9's
> >> compiler
> >> >> > >not
> >> >> > >supporting Java 5 targets anymore.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >On 12 July 2017 at 09:19, Mark Thomas  wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> On 11 July 2017 21:02:54 CEST, Amey Jadiye <
> ameyjad...@gmail.com>
> >> >> > >wrote:
> >> >> > >> >Hi Daemon Maintainers / All,
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we have
> any
> >> >> > >plan
> >> >> > >> >moving code base to git ?
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> No preference on this.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> >As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of
> bumping
> >> >> > >> >version
> >> >> > >> >from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 ?
> >> >> > >> >shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ?
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> 1.6 is OK for Tomcat. Anything higher will cause problems.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Mark
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> 
> >> -
> >> >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> >> >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 
> -
> >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >> >> >
> 

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[sebb]

On 15 July 2017 at 15:21, Amey Jadiye  wrote:
> Yes, that's mentioned  in my previous mail, I was also curious to know from
> the C developers here in dev-list that how can we make *that* C code
> better? basically I'm looking findbug, checkstyle, jococo, junit
>  *equivalent* for C code.

No idea on automated tools.
However when I last looked there was plenty of scope for better documentation.

Also I did wonder if the Prunmgr GUI might be better coded as a
(mainly) Java application.

The procrun stuff has to remain as C.

> Regards,
> Amey
>
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:44 PM, sebb  wrote:
>
>> Also note that there is hardly any Java code; most of it is written in C.
>>
>> On 14 July 2017 at 00:43, Gary Gregory  wrote:
>> > It seems OK to me to update to Java 6 for now and get this to compile
>> under
>> > java 9 for those folks who will try...
>> >
>> > Gary
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Amey Jadiye 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks for great insights Mark.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 9:28 PM Mark Thomas  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 12 July 2017 16:33:01 CEST, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>> >> > >Are there plans to require 1.7 for Tomcat anytime? Otherwise, it
>> might
>> >> > >be
>> >> > >necessary to make a new major version of daemon eventually for Java 8
>> >> > >or 9.
>> >> >
>> >> > Tomcat major versions are aligned with Java EE versions which in turn
>> >> have
>> >> > a minimum Java version.
>> >> >
>> >> > Tomcat supports 3 current versions in parallel so we currently have:
>> >> >
>> >> > Tomcat 9 - Java EE 8 - Java 8
>> >> > Tomcat 8 - Java EE 7 - Java 7
>> >> > Tomcat 7 - Java EE 6 - Java 6
>> >> >
>> >> > Tomcat 7 support will continue until at least Java EE 9 is released.
>> That
>> >> > is meant to be next year but there are no firm dates yet and
>> experience
>> >> > suggests the Java EE 9 release date will slip.
>> >> >
>> >> > On that basis I expect Tomcat to need a Daemon that supports Java 6
>> for
>> >> at
>> >> > least 2 more years.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there a user requirement driving an increase in the minimum Java
>> >> > version? If not, I suggest we stick with 6 for now.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> There is no user requirement , Commons daemon is still keeping minimum
>> >> dependency on java 1.5, we were thinking to move on minimum 1.6, nice to
>> >> hear there won't be any issue with tomcat since it's already on 1.6
>> >>
>> >> For moving to much higher i.e. java 1.7 I'm sure daemon will take
>> another
>> >> 2-3 year for keeping stability across projects.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Amey
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Anyways, 1.6 minimum makes sense to me mainly due to Java 9's
>> compiler
>> >> > >not
>> >> > >supporting Java 5 targets anymore.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >On 12 July 2017 at 09:19, Mark Thomas  wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> On 11 July 2017 21:02:54 CEST, Amey Jadiye 
>> >> > >wrote:
>> >> > >> >Hi Daemon Maintainers / All,
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we have any
>> >> > >plan
>> >> > >> >moving code base to git ?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> No preference on this.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> >As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of bumping
>> >> > >> >version
>> >> > >> >from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 ?
>> >> > >> >shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> 1.6 is OK for Tomcat. Anything higher will cause problems.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Mark
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> 
>> -
>> >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>> >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > -
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> -
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

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

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Amey Jadiye]

Yes, that's mentioned  in my previous mail, I was also curious to know from
the C developers here in dev-list that how can we make *that* C code
better? basically I'm looking findbug, checkstyle, jococo, junit
 *equivalent* for C code.

Regards,
Amey

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:44 PM, sebb  wrote:

> Also note that there is hardly any Java code; most of it is written in C.
>
> On 14 July 2017 at 00:43, Gary Gregory  wrote:
> > It seems OK to me to update to Java 6 for now and get this to compile
> under
> > java 9 for those folks who will try...
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Amey Jadiye 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for great insights Mark.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 9:28 PM Mark Thomas  wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 12 July 2017 16:33:01 CEST, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> >> > >Are there plans to require 1.7 for Tomcat anytime? Otherwise, it
> might
> >> > >be
> >> > >necessary to make a new major version of daemon eventually for Java 8
> >> > >or 9.
> >> >
> >> > Tomcat major versions are aligned with Java EE versions which in turn
> >> have
> >> > a minimum Java version.
> >> >
> >> > Tomcat supports 3 current versions in parallel so we currently have:
> >> >
> >> > Tomcat 9 - Java EE 8 - Java 8
> >> > Tomcat 8 - Java EE 7 - Java 7
> >> > Tomcat 7 - Java EE 6 - Java 6
> >> >
> >> > Tomcat 7 support will continue until at least Java EE 9 is released.
> That
> >> > is meant to be next year but there are no firm dates yet and
> experience
> >> > suggests the Java EE 9 release date will slip.
> >> >
> >> > On that basis I expect Tomcat to need a Daemon that supports Java 6
> for
> >> at
> >> > least 2 more years.
> >> >
> >> > Is there a user requirement driving an increase in the minimum Java
> >> > version? If not, I suggest we stick with 6 for now.
> >> >
> >>
> >> There is no user requirement , Commons daemon is still keeping minimum
> >> dependency on java 1.5, we were thinking to move on minimum 1.6, nice to
> >> hear there won't be any issue with tomcat since it's already on 1.6
> >>
> >> For moving to much higher i.e. java 1.7 I'm sure daemon will take
> another
> >> 2-3 year for keeping stability across projects.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Amey
> >>
> >> Mark
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >Anyways, 1.6 minimum makes sense to me mainly due to Java 9's
> compiler
> >> > >not
> >> > >supporting Java 5 targets anymore.
> >> > >
> >> > >On 12 July 2017 at 09:19, Mark Thomas  wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On 11 July 2017 21:02:54 CEST, Amey Jadiye 
> >> > >wrote:
> >> > >> >Hi Daemon Maintainers / All,
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we have any
> >> > >plan
> >> > >> >moving code base to git ?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> No preference on this.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of bumping
> >> > >> >version
> >> > >> >from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 ?
> >> > >> >shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 1.6 is OK for Tomcat. Anything higher will cause problems.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Mark
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 
> -
> >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 

-

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org

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

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[sebb]

Also note that there is hardly any Java code; most of it is written in C.

On 14 July 2017 at 00:43, Gary Gregory  wrote:
> It seems OK to me to update to Java 6 for now and get this to compile under
> java 9 for those folks who will try...
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Amey Jadiye  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for great insights Mark.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 9:28 PM Mark Thomas  wrote:
>>
>> > On 12 July 2017 16:33:01 CEST, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>> > >Are there plans to require 1.7 for Tomcat anytime? Otherwise, it might
>> > >be
>> > >necessary to make a new major version of daemon eventually for Java 8
>> > >or 9.
>> >
>> > Tomcat major versions are aligned with Java EE versions which in turn
>> have
>> > a minimum Java version.
>> >
>> > Tomcat supports 3 current versions in parallel so we currently have:
>> >
>> > Tomcat 9 - Java EE 8 - Java 8
>> > Tomcat 8 - Java EE 7 - Java 7
>> > Tomcat 7 - Java EE 6 - Java 6
>> >
>> > Tomcat 7 support will continue until at least Java EE 9 is released. That
>> > is meant to be next year but there are no firm dates yet and experience
>> > suggests the Java EE 9 release date will slip.
>> >
>> > On that basis I expect Tomcat to need a Daemon that supports Java 6 for
>> at
>> > least 2 more years.
>> >
>> > Is there a user requirement driving an increase in the minimum Java
>> > version? If not, I suggest we stick with 6 for now.
>> >
>>
>> There is no user requirement , Commons daemon is still keeping minimum
>> dependency on java 1.5, we were thinking to move on minimum 1.6, nice to
>> hear there won't be any issue with tomcat since it's already on 1.6
>>
>> For moving to much higher i.e. java 1.7 I'm sure daemon will take another
>> 2-3 year for keeping stability across projects.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Amey
>>
>> Mark
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >Anyways, 1.6 minimum makes sense to me mainly due to Java 9's compiler
>> > >not
>> > >supporting Java 5 targets anymore.
>> > >
>> > >On 12 July 2017 at 09:19, Mark Thomas  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On 11 July 2017 21:02:54 CEST, Amey Jadiye 
>> > >wrote:
>> > >> >Hi Daemon Maintainers / All,
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we have any
>> > >plan
>> > >> >moving code base to git ?
>> > >>
>> > >> No preference on this.
>> > >>
>> > >> >As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of bumping
>> > >> >version
>> > >> >from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 ?
>> > >> >shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ?
>> > >>
>> > >> 1.6 is OK for Tomcat. Anything higher will cause problems.
>> > >>
>> > >> Mark
>> > >>
>> > >> -
>> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> > -
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>

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

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Gary Gregory]

It seems OK to me to update to Java 6 for now and get this to compile under
java 9 for those folks who will try...

Gary

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Amey Jadiye  wrote:

> Thanks for great insights Mark.
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 9:28 PM Mark Thomas  wrote:
>
> > On 12 July 2017 16:33:01 CEST, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> > >Are there plans to require 1.7 for Tomcat anytime? Otherwise, it might
> > >be
> > >necessary to make a new major version of daemon eventually for Java 8
> > >or 9.
> >
> > Tomcat major versions are aligned with Java EE versions which in turn
> have
> > a minimum Java version.
> >
> > Tomcat supports 3 current versions in parallel so we currently have:
> >
> > Tomcat 9 - Java EE 8 - Java 8
> > Tomcat 8 - Java EE 7 - Java 7
> > Tomcat 7 - Java EE 6 - Java 6
> >
> > Tomcat 7 support will continue until at least Java EE 9 is released. That
> > is meant to be next year but there are no firm dates yet and experience
> > suggests the Java EE 9 release date will slip.
> >
> > On that basis I expect Tomcat to need a Daemon that supports Java 6 for
> at
> > least 2 more years.
> >
> > Is there a user requirement driving an increase in the minimum Java
> > version? If not, I suggest we stick with 6 for now.
> >
>
> There is no user requirement , Commons daemon is still keeping minimum
> dependency on java 1.5, we were thinking to move on minimum 1.6, nice to
> hear there won't be any issue with tomcat since it's already on 1.6
>
> For moving to much higher i.e. java 1.7 I'm sure daemon will take another
> 2-3 year for keeping stability across projects.
>
> Regards,
> Amey
>
> Mark
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Anyways, 1.6 minimum makes sense to me mainly due to Java 9's compiler
> > >not
> > >supporting Java 5 targets anymore.
> > >
> > >On 12 July 2017 at 09:19, Mark Thomas  wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 11 July 2017 21:02:54 CEST, Amey Jadiye 
> > >wrote:
> > >> >Hi Daemon Maintainers / All,
> > >> >
> > >> >Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we have any
> > >plan
> > >> >moving code base to git ?
> > >>
> > >> No preference on this.
> > >>
> > >> >As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of bumping
> > >> >version
> > >> >from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 ?
> > >> >shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ?
> > >>
> > >> 1.6 is OK for Tomcat. Anything higher will cause problems.
> > >>
> > >> Mark
> > >>
> > >> -
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Amey Jadiye]

Thanks for great insights Mark.

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 9:28 PM Mark Thomas  wrote:

> On 12 July 2017 16:33:01 CEST, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> >Are there plans to require 1.7 for Tomcat anytime? Otherwise, it might
> >be
> >necessary to make a new major version of daemon eventually for Java 8
> >or 9.
>
> Tomcat major versions are aligned with Java EE versions which in turn have
> a minimum Java version.
>
> Tomcat supports 3 current versions in parallel so we currently have:
>
> Tomcat 9 - Java EE 8 - Java 8
> Tomcat 8 - Java EE 7 - Java 7
> Tomcat 7 - Java EE 6 - Java 6
>
> Tomcat 7 support will continue until at least Java EE 9 is released. That
> is meant to be next year but there are no firm dates yet and experience
> suggests the Java EE 9 release date will slip.
>
> On that basis I expect Tomcat to need a Daemon that supports Java 6 for at
> least 2 more years.
>
> Is there a user requirement driving an increase in the minimum Java
> version? If not, I suggest we stick with 6 for now.
>

There is no user requirement , Commons daemon is still keeping minimum
dependency on java 1.5, we were thinking to move on minimum 1.6, nice to
hear there won't be any issue with tomcat since it's already on 1.6

For moving to much higher i.e. java 1.7 I'm sure daemon will take another
2-3 year for keeping stability across projects.

Regards,
Amey

Mark
>
>
> >
> >Anyways, 1.6 minimum makes sense to me mainly due to Java 9's compiler
> >not
> >supporting Java 5 targets anymore.
> >
> >On 12 July 2017 at 09:19, Mark Thomas  wrote:
> >
> >> On 11 July 2017 21:02:54 CEST, Amey Jadiye 
> >wrote:
> >> >Hi Daemon Maintainers / All,
> >> >
> >> >Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we have any
> >plan
> >> >moving code base to git ?
> >>
> >> No preference on this.
> >>
> >> >As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of bumping
> >> >version
> >> >from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 ?
> >> >shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ?
> >>
> >> 1.6 is OK for Tomcat. Anything higher will cause problems.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Mark Thomas]

On 12 July 2017 16:33:01 CEST, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>Are there plans to require 1.7 for Tomcat anytime? Otherwise, it might
>be
>necessary to make a new major version of daemon eventually for Java 8
>or 9.

Tomcat major versions are aligned with Java EE versions which in turn have a 
minimum Java version.

Tomcat supports 3 current versions in parallel so we currently have:

Tomcat 9 - Java EE 8 - Java 8
Tomcat 8 - Java EE 7 - Java 7
Tomcat 7 - Java EE 6 - Java 6

Tomcat 7 support will continue until at least Java EE 9 is released. That is 
meant to be next year but there are no firm dates yet and experience suggests 
the Java EE 9 release date will slip.

On that basis I expect Tomcat to need a Daemon that supports Java 6 for at 
least 2 more years.

Is there a user requirement driving an increase in the minimum Java version? If 
not, I suggest we stick with 6 for now.

Mark


>
>Anyways, 1.6 minimum makes sense to me mainly due to Java 9's compiler
>not
>supporting Java 5 targets anymore.
>
>On 12 July 2017 at 09:19, Mark Thomas  wrote:
>
>> On 11 July 2017 21:02:54 CEST, Amey Jadiye 
>wrote:
>> >Hi Daemon Maintainers / All,
>> >
>> >Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we have any
>plan
>> >moving code base to git ?
>>
>> No preference on this.
>>
>> >As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of bumping
>> >version
>> >from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 ?
>> >shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ?
>>
>> 1.6 is OK for Tomcat. Anything higher will cause problems.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>>
>>


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

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Matt Sicker]

Are there plans to require 1.7 for Tomcat anytime? Otherwise, it might be
necessary to make a new major version of daemon eventually for Java 8 or 9.

Anyways, 1.6 minimum makes sense to me mainly due to Java 9's compiler not
supporting Java 5 targets anymore.

On 12 July 2017 at 09:19, Mark Thomas  wrote:

> On 11 July 2017 21:02:54 CEST, Amey Jadiye  wrote:
> >Hi Daemon Maintainers / All,
> >
> >Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we have any plan
> >moving code base to git ?
>
> No preference on this.
>
> >As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of bumping
> >version
> >from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 ?
> >shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ?
>
> 1.6 is OK for Tomcat. Anything higher will cause problems.
>
> Mark
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker 

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Mark Thomas]

On 11 July 2017 21:02:54 CEST, Amey Jadiye  wrote:
>Hi Daemon Maintainers / All,
>
>Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we have any plan
>moving code base to git ?

No preference on this.

>As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of bumping
>version
>from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 ?
>shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ?

1.6 is OK for Tomcat. Anything higher will cause problems.

Mark

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

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Gary Gregory]

As far as migrating from svn to git, it's just busy work an Apache
Committers needs to volunteer to do. Certainly not critical, especially
since this component does not get much attention these days.

Gary

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Amey Jadiye  wrote:

> Hi Daemon Maintainers / All,
>
> Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we have any plan
> moving code base to git ?
>
> As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of bumping version
> from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 ?
> shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ?
>
> Regards,
> Amey
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Gary Gregory]

The only reason to update to Java 6 is that Java 9 will no longer compiler
for targets below Java 6, which is fine with me. Java 7 would also be OK by
me.

Gary

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Amey Jadiye  wrote:

> Hi Daemon Maintainers / All,
>
> Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we have any plan
> moving code base to git ?
>
> As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of bumping version
> from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 ?
> shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ?
>
> Regards,
> Amey
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>

Re: [daemon] moving to git ? and bump java version.

[Matt Sicker]

We could migrate to git as we've been slowly doing for most of Commons.
Someone needs to take charge and handle it, though. A lazy vote thread to
do so is the usual way to start the process.

On 11 July 2017 at 14:02, Amey Jadiye  wrote:

> Hi Daemon Maintainers / All,
>
> Daemon seems to be still being maintained on svn, do we have any plan
> moving code base to git ?
>
> As fact there is low activity in daemon no one thought of bumping version
> from 1.5 to 1.6 OR we are keeping it purposefully to 1.5 ?
> shall we bump it minimum to 1.6 ?
>
> Regards,
> Amey
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>



-- 
Matt Sicker