felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Bosschaert <david.bosscha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:50:30 GMT
I would really like to start getting this release out, any comments on
Guillaume's updated patch?
If nobody has any comments I can just apply it and get the release
process rolling.

Cheers,

David

On 24 February 2014 14:07, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org> wrote:
> I just proposed a patch for FELIX-4190, so comments are welcomed.
>
>
> 2014-02-24 9:50 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org>:
>
>> Do you have a patch that you could attach to FELIX-3687 that I could look
>> at ?
>> Again, I have no problems reverting my patch, but I'd like FELIX-3687 /
>> FELIX-4190 to be fixed in some way or another, preferably the best one ...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-23 19:25 GMT+01:00 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> As I've said before, I sort of need some advice on how to proceed to fix
>>> the deadlock.  I'm slightly in favor of just rolling back Guillaume's fix
>>> since it is definitely not spec compliant.  Whether the deadlock is more
>>> spec compliant is certainly debatable.
>>>
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Feb 23, 2014, at 8:14 AM, David Bosschaert <david.bosschaert@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > It's been a while since this thread was started. I see that there is a
>>> > desire to improve on the locking, but nothing has happened in that
>>> > area over the past month.
>>> > I was thinking to start putting together a release early March, since
>>> > it will be nice to have R5 core support in a release. If we can get
>>> > the locking code improved before that then great, but was thinking
>>> > that if nothing has happened there we should postpone
>>> > FELIX-3687/FELIX-4190 to a later release?
>>> >
>>> > Thought anyone?
>>> > Cheers,
>>> >
>>> > David
>>> >
>>> > On 30 January 2014 08:53, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
>>> >>
>>> >>> I hope that someone cleans up the mess around
>>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3687
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4190
>>> >>> before a release candidate.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In the first issue I proposed a patch, Richard pointed out a problem,
>>> and
>>> >>> I suggested a possible solution and haven't gotten any comments.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In the 2nd issue Guillaume committed a fix that is invalid and AFAIK
>>> it
>>> >>> has not been corrected.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> thanks
>>> >>> david jencks
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Jan 17, 2014, at 8:40 AM, David Bosschaert <
>>> david.bosschaert@gmail.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On 17 January 2014 16:16, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>> +1 for a new framework release, it would be great to have
full R5
>>> >>> support,
>>> >>>>> but if that is not supposed to happen soon
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Full disclosure:
>>> >>>> I tried my hand on those resolver related open issues, but had
the
>>> >>>> feeling that I didn't understand the Felix code well enough
for it.
>>> >>>> The resolver is a pretty complex beast, especially since it's
>>> >>>> recursive/re-entrant and I found that fixing one little issue
would
>>> >>>> cause tons of other things to fall over elsewhere ;) In the
end I
>>> >>>> often came up with a patchwork of fixes for one resolver CT
test
>>> >>>> failure where I had the feeling that it could be done more elegantly.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> so in the end I abandoned my attempts here... I think those
remaining
>>> >>>> resolver issues are for someone who really knows the felix resolver
>>> >>>> code inside out :)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Cheers,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> David
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message