poi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominik Stadler <dominik.stad...@gmx.at>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache POI 3.15 (RC2)
Date Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:15:02 GMT
Hi,

The mem-leak patch looks good and sane!

I am still not sure how they end up with such a large amount of allocated
memory for one file, but it is surely better to not keep the buffers if we
do not need the special handling during close() anyway.

I have some minor modifications/simplifications around these statements
that I will apply post-release

Dominik.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <tallison@mitre.org>
wrote:

> >* I'll take a look at the patch on TIKA-2058, if it's low-risk it can go
> in
> I committed Luis Filipe Nassif's patch last night (BUG 60140).  Please do
> take a look to make sure the change doesn't cause any unforeseen problems.
>
> >> * I could do with input from those who use HSLF about whether to hold
> up another RC for the issue below.
> > I've already patched the HSLF issue yesterday
>
> Thank you, Andi!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David North [mailto:dtn-poi@corefiling.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 4:16 AM
> To: dev@poi.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache POI 3.15 (RC2)
>
> OK, current status:
>
> * I'll take a look at the patch on TIKA-2058, if it's low-risk it can go in
> * I could do with input from those who use HSLF about whether to hold up
> another RC for the issue below.
>
> I may not have time to roll RC3 tonight; if not I'll do it tomorrow night
> which gives us all the weekend to try it out.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On 14/09/16 21:39, Javen O'Neal wrote:
> > The HSLF footer text regression is still open.
> > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60003
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-2013
> >
> > On Sep 14, 2016 12:43 PM, "Dominik Stadler" <dominik.stadler@gmx.at>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'd also rather keep it as is to not break it multiple times.
> >>
> >> Dominik.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Javen O'Neal <javenoneal@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> CellValue#getCellType was changed to return an enum after the 3.14
> >> release.
> >>> I reverted that signature change in r1760607 (see bug 59791 comment
> 13).
> >>>
> >>> For bug 59907, I broke backwards compatibility for ClientAnchor
> >>> (both
> >> HSSF
> >>> and XSSF) in r1716313 (first appeared in POI 3.14 beta 1 and
> >>> included in POI 3.14 final) without the usual 2 release deprecation
> >>> warning. The question is do I restore the behavior of 3.13 (breaking
> >>> code a second
> >> time
> >>> for anyone who upgraded their code to 3.14, and a third time
> >>> whenever we retire the int code), or do we leave it as is and ask
> >>> users to upgrade to the enum getter now?
> >>>
> >>> Looking at the code example from bug 59907 comment 1, the fix for
> >>> them is
> >>> simple: delete ".getValue()".
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 13, 2016 09:06, "Javen O'Neal" <javenoneal@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I will commit a fix for this today with the goal for backwards
> >>>> compatibility.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's the plan:
> >>>> getX() returns int
> >>>> getXEnum() returns enum
> >>>> setX(int)
> >>>> setX(enum)
> >>>>
> >>>> I will also take a look at bug 59907 (client anchor enum)
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sep 13, 2016 6:58 AM, "David North" <dtn-poi@corefiling.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Javen, any thoughts on this one?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 13/09/16 12:14, Dominik Stadler wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I really hate to delay this further, but unfortunately we have
a
> >>> similar
> >>>>>> problem in class CellValue as we tried to fix in Cell in RC2,
the
> >>>>>> getCellType() is now an enum whereas it was an int before, so
> >>> something
> >>>>>> like the following in user-code does break in POI 3.15:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> CellValue cellValue = checkAndGetCellValue(evaluator, sheet,
> >>>>>> line);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     switch (cellValue.getCellType()) {
> >>>>>>         case Cell.CELL_TYPE_STRING:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am sorry that I did not see this earlier but this can lead
to
> >>>>>> the
> >>> same
> >>>>>> incompatibility as we had in Cell before.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dominik.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 9:46 PM, David North <dnorth@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My apologies for going AWOL in the middle of the last release
> >>> attempt.
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>>> didn't anticipate that we'd find problems in review twice
in a
> >>>>>>> row,
> >>> and
> >>>>>>> things have been very busy for me at work lately. However,
I've
> >>>>>>> now rolled a second RC for 3.15.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/poi/3.15-RC2/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Areas to review:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> * Does it work?
> >>>>>>> * Are the sigs and hashes valid?
> >>>>>>> * Have the issues with the last RC been fixed?
> >>>>>>> * Are the release notes now in good shape?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The vote starts now and ends at 20:55 BST on Tuesday 13
> >>>>>>> September
> >>> 2016.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here is my +1.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> After this release is done, I'll try and find some time
to
> >>>>>>> profile
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> build & tests - 15 minutes is quite a wait on an SSD
(it's
> >>>>>>> possible
> >>> we
> >>>>>>> might want some multi-threaded options on the tests).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> David North | www.dnorth.net
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org For
> >>>>> additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message