incubator-jspwiki-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Siegfried Goeschl <sgoes...@gmx.at>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release JSPWiki version 2.9.0-incubating
Date Fri, 09 Nov 2012 23:20:23 GMT
Hi Craig,

worx for me ... ;-)

Cheers,

Siegfried Goeschl

On 09.11.12 23:15, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Siegfried,
>
> Thanks for taking a look at the release. You have given a good reason 
> for your -1. Reasonable people may disagree; I would not call this 
> issue a blocker. In fact, there's no requirement that a release 
> actually work (!) but that it is legally proper and downstream users 
> might find it useful. That's why a -1 will not block a release, 
> assuming more +1 than -1.
>
> We have several +1 and your -1 so far. If we don't get any more votes, 
> we will forward the vote to the IPMC for their approval.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>
>> Hi Florian and Harry,
>>
>> thanks for responding even in the middle of the night ...
>>
>> ad 1) my bad - I indeed used an old wiki page set - shame on me
>>
>> ad 2) "The guitests target is not part of the build sequence for good 
>> reasons" - I know but how you find any new GUI bugs if the guitests 
>> are considered broken and not executed? Maybe the next time we get 18 
>> errors instead of 17 but when the tests are ignored that one bug 
>> could cause frustration within the JSPWiki user community when it 
>> escapes into the real world - I had my five minutes of fame when a 
>> late change caused a NPE in my commons-exec release - I think I got 
>> more than 20 mails with "btw, there is a stupid NPE in this method". 
>> IMHO it is acceptable to state that 17 tests are indeed broken but 
>> those 17 tests should be commented out to get overall guitests 
>> working - for the remaining 17 tests we can create a JIRA and hope 
>> for better times.
>>
>> ad 3) I completely agree with your disagreement and I dislike the RAT 
>> report as well ... :-) ... but two thoughts on that : on the one hand 
>> there are already exceptions defined in the RAT report generation on 
>> the other hand some guys are pretty stubborn regarding RAT report 
>> violation - they have somehow the tendency to skip interpreting the 
>> RAT report and complain about it which could cause a RC to fail. I 
>> had too many rejected RC with Apache Commons ...
>>
>> Conclusion - 1) was my mistake, I have a major issue with 2) and 
>> minor issue with 3)
>>
>> Still on -1
>>
>> Hope you understand me reasoning
>>
>> Siegfried Goeschl
>>
>> On 09.11.12 21:54, Florian Holeczek wrote:
>>> Hi Siegfried,
>>>
>>> first, thanks for having had a thorough look at the stuff!
>>>
>>>> 1) [Major] when I deploy the exploded WAR to my local Tomcat the 
>>>> "Find Pages" in the left hand navigation does not work -  it shows 
>>>> an non-existing Wiki page instead of opening a search page -  I 
>>>> tried with the LuceneSearchProvider and the BasicSearchProvider but 
>>>> it does not work. I did not see any error message in jspwiki.log 
>>>> but the fulltext search DOES work when using the "Quick Navigation"
>>>
>>> you're probably using an old wiki page set, so this is expected 
>>> behaviour. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-664
>>>
>>>> 2) [Major] when running "ant guitests" 17 out of my 962 test fail. 
>>>> Could be some missing configuration I'm not aware of but I would 
>>>> expect all tests to pass ... ;-)
>>>
>>> The guitests target is not part of the build sequence for good 
>>> reasons :-)
>>>
>>>> 3) [Minor] The RAT report could appreciate a few more exceptions to 
>>>> get rid of the "17 Unknown Licenses"
>>>
>>> I completely disagree in this point - The RAT report is nothing one 
>>> will want to tell "Great, all fine!", in order to print it out and 
>>> decorate some wall. Instead, it's only a helper tool that is meant 
>>> to generate a good, unfiltered overview of reality. It's then up to 
>>> the reader to interpret its contents.
>>> Putting exceptions into it means that you lose control over the 
>>> ignored files and risk to oversee relevant issues in later 
>>> modifications of these files.
>>>
>>>> Can anyone double-check? Currently (see 1+2) my vote is
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>>>> [X] -1 Disapprove the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>
>>> The only issue IMO is no. 2 - but it's a minor issue that should not 
>>> be blocking a release. WDYT?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Florian
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Oracle
> http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>


Mime
View raw message