commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Promote vfs-cifs out of sandbox?
Date Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:50:27 GMT
perhaps, we can release smb provider as is at commons-vfs and mark it
as experimental? I see a number of apache project doing that.

-D

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Dan Tran <dantran@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I took a closer look at writing unit test case for vfs-cifs and came
> to a conclusion that the test cases are tough to develop since there
> is no available embedded cifs server available ( note that the current
> test cases for other provider heavily depends on embedded server like
> ftp, sftp, webdav, etc ).  And mocking the testcase up is not that
> worth.
>
> So I would like to propose to release cifs provider as a beta together
> with vfs-maven-plugin and have users to test it out. My company is
> using intensively in house and about the bring it to full production (
> there fore I need to release vfs-maven-plugin at MOJO's codehaus soon
> )
>
> Any objection for me release it as propose using the same java package
> name( org.apache.commons.vfs.... )  at codehaus?
>
> Thanks
>
> -D
>
> Note I do have test case for cift using provided example pom
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 4:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Promote vfs-cift out of sandbox?
> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Dan Tran <dantran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have from now to Octorber to  either:
>>
>>   1. Implement test requirement to graduate vfs-cifs out of sandbox at
>> Apache common
>>
>>   2. Release it as a alpha/beta at Codehaus together with vfs-maven-plugin
>>
>>   3. Release to our internal repo.
>>
>> The prefer one is 1
>>
>
> So do I :)
>
>
>>
>> What is VFS 2.1 schedule?
>>
>
> I would like to push out a 2.1 sooner rather than later. I still see some
> internal clean ups I'd like to do. So it might be out in a month or two. Or
> not, it depends on my schedule, priorities and feedback I get once I start
> cutting release candidates.
>
> It's possible that by October, VFS will be on 2.2, 2.3 or greater.
>
> Gary
>
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Dan? What are your plans or intentions here?
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Gary
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Jul 19, 2012, at 12:11, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:38 AM, sebb wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Can the above be read as follows for VFS and JCIFS:
you cannot
>> copy
>> >> the
>> >> >>>>> JCIFS jar into VFS (which we do not) but the VFS POM
can point to
>> it
>> >> (which
>> >> >>>>> we do).
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The above document is only proposed, not actual policy.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The following is the resolved list of questions:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> In particular:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> "Will the majority of users want to use my product without
adding
>> the
>> >> >>>> optional components?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I do not see how this helps. It's yes or no: Can the VFS POM
point
>> to
>> >> >>> a set of artifacts that are LGPL?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Whether the answer is yes or no depends on the answer to the above
>> >> question.
>> >> >
>> >> > There are only a few file systems in VFS that should be considered
>> >> required. All the ones that require the user to include a third-party
>> jar -
>> >> even if it is Jackrabbit's - are optional.  We could easily include file
>> >> systems that have dependencies on artifacts that are licensed under the
>> >> LGPL or similar licenses (although I would still shy away from GPL'd
>> works
>> >> because of the FSF's interpretation of their license).
>> >> >
>> >> > The biggest issue I see with the stuff in the sandbox isn't licensing
>> >> but if anyone will support it.
>> >>
>> >> Ok, so the short answer is yes, we can move to trunk. The issue is
>> >> whether someone can bring the code up to par. That person sounds like
>> >> the author of the original post. After that, it's up to the
>> >> committers, like me, to keep up.
>> >>
>> >> Gary
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Ralph
>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
>> > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
>> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

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


Mime
View raw message