myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leonardo Uribe" <lu4...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] release for tomahawk 1.1.8
Date Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:03:41 GMT
Hi

I have updated the artifacts, so the correct NOTICE is available.

regards

Leonardo Uribe


On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org>wrote:

> +1 if the NOTICE is fixed
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Grant Smith <work.grant@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 if the NOTICE is fixed.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Simon Kitching <skitching@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com
> >> > <mailto:lu4242@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >     On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching
> >> >     <skitching@apache.org <mailto:skitching@apache.org>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >         Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
> >> >         > Hi,
> >> >         >
> >> >         > I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of
> >> >         Apache
> >> >         > MyFaces Tomahawk out.
> >> >
> >> >         Some initial test results:
> >> >
> >> >         The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets +
> >> >         Mojarra1.2.0_09 + java1.6.
> >> >
> >> >         For the "staging repo" files deployed here:
> >> >          http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> >> >         <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> >> >         <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> >> >         The binary jar license, manifest all look ok.
> >> >         Checksums all look ok.
> >> >
> >> >         Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but
> the
> >> >         standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has a
> >> >         lot more
> >> >         credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could
> >> >         be wrong...
> >> >
> >> >         And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which
> >> >         should
> >> >         probably be updated.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >     That's strange but true, the notice should be the same for all.
> >> >     I'll take a look.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The problem was a override when unpacking shared tomahawk sources.
> >> > This was fixed and updated the part of copyright to "copyright
> >> > 2004-2008". The new artifacts will be generated after the question
> >> > about optional dependency to commons is solved.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >         I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom:
> >> >
> >> >            <!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload.
> >> >            in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload
> >> >            uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it
> >> >            in our pom as runtime dependency  -->
> >> >            <dependency>
> >> >              <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
> >> >              <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
> >> >              <version>1.3.2</version>
> >> >              <scope>runtime</scope>
> >> >            </dependency>
> >> >
> >> >         I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if
> >> >         someone
> >> >         wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then
> >> >         why should
> >> >         we force commons-io to be included in their classpath?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >     This change was introduced on 1.1.7, since from commons-io 1.2,
> >> >     this library was marked as optional. From other point of view if
> >> >     someone does not want commons-io to be included in their classpath
> >> >     he/she can exclude it. Good question. In my opinion one or other
> >> >     it is the same (read it as +0 taking the + to let it as is), but I
> >> >     prefer add to the classpath by default because if not, every user
> >> >     of t:inputFileUpload must add this dependency by hand. It could be
> >> >     good to have a community point of view about it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > In my opinion, it is more easier use this for exclude commons-io
> >> > dependency:
> >> >
> >> > <dependency>
> >> >  <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk</groupId>
> >> >  <artifactId>tomahawk</artifactId>
> >> >
> >> >  <version>1.1.8</version>
> >> >  <exclusions>
> >> >    <exclusion>
> >> >      <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
> >> >      <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
> >> >    </exclusion>
> >> >  </exclusions>
> >> >
> >> > </dependency>
> >> >
> >> > In the other case, you need to find the proper version of commons-io
> >> > (requires that users check tomahawk 1.1.8 pom) and add it as
> >> > dependency if the user wants to use t:inputFileUpload.
> >>
> >> Ok, I'm convinced, particularly as this change was already in 1.1.7. So
> >> no objection from me on the commons-io dependency.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards, Simon
> >>
> >> --
> >> -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored
> >> -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Grant Smith
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>

Mime
View raw message