incubator-etch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Dixson <dixs...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Contents of Release 1.1
Date Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:49:53 GMT
* Holger Grandy <Holger.Grandy@bmw-carit.de> [2010-09-14 17:36:39 +0200]:

> Hi Scott, 
> 
> I don't see any reason not to include smaller fixes for bugs which we know today already.
We also have some issues with the 
> c binding resolved internally in the last weeks and will merge them to the ASF svn. 
> 
> Which unit tests failed for you?
> 
> Regarding external dependencies: We had the same issue with the c binding. It relies
on apr, apr-iconv, apr-util and cunit. 
> I personally don't like the idea of checking them in because it bloats trunk. The native
libs have to be supplied in flavors 
> for all OSes which we target, too. In my opinion an environment variable (e.g. "ETCH_EXTERNAL_DEPENDS")
which is used in 
> build scripts would be best. We did it similarly with the c binding and the main ant
build uses "TOOLS_DIR" (which is perhaps 
> a little bit too generic). 

I like the ETCH_EXTERNAL_DEPENDS idea too :-). The only thing that might
be more convenient would be an autoconf wrapper around the process to
allow dependencies to be specified as args to a configure script. But
autoconf is non-trivial to setup and requires a lot of testing.

> 
> Some other frameworks provide third party download packages on their websites...
>

I agree providing links would be helpful.

> I don't think that there is a summary of dependents for the build listed on the website
yet. Do you want to add your list 
> there?
> 
> Holger
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scott comer [mailto:wert1y@mac.com] 
> Sent: Dienstag, 14. September 2010 16:16
> To: etch-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Martijn Dashorst
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Contents of Release 1.1
> 
>   in our use of etch here at spawn i've run across a couple of bugs. 
> lazy me has not posted
> them yet, though the setSockOpt bug has been mentioned. should our 1.1 
> include any
> bug fixes, and if so, which ones?
> 
> i'll post bugs for what i found a little later today. the setSockOpt fix 
> is pretty easy, but might
> need some discussion.
> 
> when i tried to build at home on win7 the unit tests failed.
> 
> i have condensed the dependents necessary for build, and we had 
> discussed checking them
> into a deps or libs directory. should i do that?
> 
> scott out
> 
> On 9/14/2010 8:40 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > I don't think a vote was necessary, nor is there any procedure to be
> > followed, however it never hurts to ask to include something, or to
> > poll consensus on an issue. That said, if someone is willing to be a
> > release master, then they get all the leeway they need. If the release
> > master thinks that the C bindings should go with the release, then so
> > be it. If there's objection to doing so in 1.1, why not skip 1.1 and
> > go directly to release 1.2?
> >
> > The ASF fosters meritocratic communities where merit is earned by doing.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Holger Grandy
> > <Holger.Grandy@bmw-carit.de>  wrote:
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> since Scott is mentioning voting procedures, I would like to pick up that point
and start
> >> a vote regarding a upcoming release 1.1 of Etch. Vote will run for 72 hours
until Friday.
> >>
> >> I propose that we publish Release 1.1 with the C binding implementation included
> >> in the next weeks (as stated in the mail below).
> >>
> >> Please vote:
> >> -1 : no, release 1.1 should not contain the C binding, because ...
> >> 0  : I don't care
> >> +1 : Release 1.1 should be published with the C binding as described below
> >>
> >> ----
> >> +1 from me
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Holger
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: scott comer [mailto:wert1y@mac.com]
> >> Sent: Montag, 13. September 2010 15:27
> >> To: etch-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Future of Etch
> >>
> >>   well, much as martijn might wish otherwise, there are procedures for
> >> voting such a plan.
> >>
> >> i don't like two things:
> >>
> >> 1) please don't remove the tag.
> >>
> >> 2) why not proceed with the release 1.1 as is, and release 1.2 with c
> >> binding from trunk. less confusion.
> >>
> >> scott out
> >>
> >> On 9/13/2010 2:36 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Holger Grandy
> >>> <Holger.Grandy@bmw-carit.de>    wrote:
> >>>> We have seen an older mail regarding release 1.1. from April. I propose
we start over to prepare a release
> >>>> package in September and initiate a PMC vote regarding that when its
ready. Will create Jiras for that.
> >>>> Proposal: remove the old release 1.1 branch, merge etch-c into trunk,
fix bugs, create new release
> >>>> branch from trunk for 1.1
> >>> This sounds like a good plan. Go for it.
> >>>
> >>> Martijn
> >>
> >
> >
> 

Mime
View raw message