river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Creswell <dan.cresw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next Release
Date Sun, 07 Apr 2013 10:29:13 GMT
I'm of the opinion that this situation has occurred because of policy
decisions by various developers in respect of what development and how much
to do where. I don't think the current tooling has anything to do with
those decisions nor do I believe git would've led to a different set of
decisions.

Basically, either of git or svn have sufficient mojo to cope with the
policies we're discussing. Would either enforce/encourage a particular set
of policies that would make a difference? Doubtful.

On 7 April 2013 05:08, Jeff Ramsdale <jeff.ramsdale@gmail.com> wrote:

> At the risk of de-railing the conversation, is there an option to move to
> git for Apache Foundation projects such as River? I was long a big
> proponent of SVN but I'm now thoroughly converted and can't help but think
> this situation wouldn't have occurred if git were in use. (Yes, it's
> possible to do a bunch of commits on master, but it's not the usual
> practice.)
>
> -j
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Greg Trasuk <trasukg@stratuscom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The "2.2" branch is very clean.  It starts from release in 2011. Since
> > then, Dennis applied RIVER-417, added poms for listing at Maven Central,
> > and applied the Levels fix.  I've applied RIVER-149, and that's it.
> >
> > A few days ago, I set out to see what else from the trunk should be
> > rolled in for a "minimal" release.  In particular, I wanted to include
> > the fix for RIVER-149 which I did a while ago, because it fixes a
> > problem with the container work I've been doing separately.  But I also
> > figured we might want to include non-controversial fixes.
> >
> > Before then, I did a 'svn diff', but it appears that the vast majority
> > of files have at least cosmetic changes (may be tabs or something),
> > because I got just about every file in the repository.
> >
> > See below for the list of changes that svn says have been applied to the
> > trunk since the release.  I started going through all the revisions to
> > see what they were, by doing 'svn diff ../trunk -c XXX' where x is the
> > revision number (perhaps there's a non-manual way to do this).   As you
> > can see, I didn't get too far before I started thinking that we'd better
> > do some strategic thinking.  So I just merged in:
> >
> > r1211940 - RIVER-149 Fixes
> > r1140819 - Update build documentation.
> >
> > Back to the changes in trunk?
> >
> > To see what's gone on since 2.2.0, run the following:
> >
> >         svn log https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/river/jtsk/trunk -r
> > 1137621:HEAD
> >
> > I want to be very careful here because I don't want to sound like I'm
> > criticizing anyone.  I know that Peter, especially, has done a lot of
> > work on the code.
> >
> > Having said that, as an observation and not a value judgement, I have to
> > say that I'm not confident about the state of the trunk.  There have
> > been too many changes since a release, both to the main code and the
> > test code.  There are radical changes to the security policy provider
> > (for perceived concurrency issues and also for revokable grants, I
> > think).  Much cleaning, deleting, reorganizing.  Many alterations
> > suggested by FindBugs.  Replacement of string concatenation by
> > StringBuilder.  Something about reference collections, which adds a jar
> > file that I can find no information on.  Additions of 'dnsjava name
> > service provider'.  Changes to tests that fail because of a
> > ConcurrentPolicyProvider.  Changes to PreferredClassLoader to supposedly
> > improve concurrency.  More changes to tests.  Adding generics.  Many
> > changes to tests to fix test failures.
> >
> > A lot of the changes look to me, like thrashing on problems.  Now I
> > realize that chasing concurrency bugs can be a long game of
> > "whack-a-mole", but I see a lot of uncertainty and thrashing at solution
> > attempts.  And I don't recall anyone reporting concurrency problems in
> > the field.  And the first set of changes in there is a hell-of-a-long
> > list of "incremental merge of concurrent policy items".
> >
> > Short answer - for now I think we ought to test and release "2.2.1" from
> > the "2.2" branch.  This branch includes the Level fixes and RIVER-149
> > fix and not much else.  It fixes the immediate problem that users have
> > reported, the system doesn't run with JDK7.
> >
> > List of longer-term reccommendations  to follow.  This message is
> > already in tl;dr territory.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> > Changes to the trunk since 2.2.0
> > =========================
> > N r1128239 Added rat_reports.sh.  Superseded
> > Y r1140819 Updated minimum Java version in build.html
> > Y r1211940 Fix RIVER-149
> > N r1213641 River-265 Fix for unlucky caching as requested. River-401
> > Changed to utilise URI in place of URL in map's and arrays to avoid
> > unnecessary DNS lookups.
> > r1213675 RIVER-401 Fix null pointer.  Seems to be related to above.
> > r1222914 Fix exception cast and reset interrupt status.
> > Y r1224722 Fix JDK7 compile errors (inner class private field
> > accessibility)
> > Y r1227948 Commit msg says "RIVER-402 Fix null pointer exception.  Looks
> > like JDK7 inner class private field accessibility stuff.
> > r1231478 Fix RIVER-403.  DGC Leaks threads.
> > N r1231673 Reverted common.xml to trunk version.  This is superseded by
> > dreedy's commit on 20130403.
> > N r1231675 Changed common.xml.  As above.
> > N r1238468 Changed common.xml. As above.
> > Y r1241254 Propagate cause of interrupt.  Very minor change to assist
> > service developers during debugging.
> > r1290906 Prepare for merge 2nd try.  What?
> > r1290925 Incremental merge of concurrent policy items.
> > r1290926 Incremental merge of concurrent policy items.
> > r1290929 Continuing merge of concurrent policy items.
> > r1290940 Continuing incremental merge.
> > r1290947 Continuing concurrent policy merge
> > r1290948 Continuing concurrent policy merge
> > r1290949 Continuing concurrent policy merge
> > r1290965 Completion of concurrent policy merge (replace trunk).
> > r1290982 Minor post-merge changes for above.
> > r1291177 Removed source/target overrides in javac-cmd in build.xml
> > (JDK7?)
> > r1291182 Up 5 to 6 in javadoc.source property
> > r1301927 Cleaning, deleting, reorganizing
> > r1301929 Cleaning, deleting, reorganizing
> > r1302036 Cleaning, deleting, reorganizing
> > r1302083 Cleaning, deleting, reorganizing
> > r1302114 Deleted failing test, it was no longer relevant, tested
> > Delegate Security Manager functionality, which is now disabled.  Reduced
> > the number of Integer, Long, Float, Char etc objects created, by using
> > valueOf instead of new.  Fixed minor bugs found with FindBugs - some
> > string concatenations in loops outstanding
> > r1302267 Deleted failing test, it was no longer relevant, tested
> > Delegate Security Manager functionality, which is now disabled.  Reduced
> > the number of Integer, Long, Float, Char etc objects created, by using
> > valueOf instead of new.  Fixed minor bugs found with FindBugs - some
> > string concatenations in loops outstanding
> > r1302364 Reduced the number of Integer, Long, Float, Char, Short, etc
> > objects created, by using valueOf instead of new.  Replaced string
> > concatenation in loops with StringBuilder.  Fixed some bugs reported by
> > FindBugs.
> > r1303195 Fixed bug in Reggie, when random number returns
> > Integer.MIN_VALUE, then Maths.abs returns a negative number.  Fixed a
> > classpath issue in the qa suite, caused by separating reference
> > collections.
> > r1309816 Added missing ASF license header.
> > r1309818 Updated rat version.
> > r1332577 Add doap.rdf file
> > r1337773 Add reference-collections to class path in two qa tests.
> > r1338673 Session class delayed instantiation in jdk1.6 caused
> > SecurityException because proxy ProtectionDomain was on the stack.  This
> > caused some jtreg tests to fail, small fix, the bug doesn't exist in any
> > releases.
> > r1344606 Added netbeans onebigjar project.
> > r1344639 forced default compile options in project.properties
> > (onebigjar)
> > r1344736 added proper label (onebigjar).
> > r1355351 Refactoring for release, clean up and decrease size of new
> > public api.  Separated RemotePolicy implementation from
> > DynamicPolicyProvider.  Version numbers and documentation still requires
> > update prior to release.
> > r1355851 Refactoring for release, clean up and review new public api,
> > sanity check and remove unnecessary methods.  Added dnsjava name service
> > provider to handle reverse dns lookup and to provide concurrent dns
> > lookups.  Updated reference-collections, these were updated to avoid
> > calling hashCode during initialisation of Timed references and temporary
> > referrers, this helped reduced SocketPermission.hashCode calls that
> > caused reverse lookups and recursive permission checks that cause stack
> > overflow in the CombinerSecurityManager.  Two tests are failling due to
> > a change to ConcurrentPolicyFile, now only privileged domains are
> > returned by getPermissions(CodeSource) and all other instances are
> > diverted to the java.security.Policy superclass which returns an empty
> > PermissionCollection this is to avoid checking permissions twice.
> > r1355852 Refactoring for release, clean up and review new public api,
> > sanity check and remove unnecessary methods.  Added dnsjava name service
> > provider to handle reverse dns lookup and to provide concurrent dns
> > lookups.  Updated reference-collections, these were updated to avoid
> > calling hashCode during initialisation of Timed references and temporary
> > referrers, this helped reduced SocketPermission.hashCode calls that
> > caused reverse lookups and recursive permission checks that cause stack
> > overflow in the CombinerSecurityManager.  Two tests are failling due to
> > a change to ConcurrentPolicyFile, now only privileged domains are
> > returned by getPermissions(CodeSource) and all other instances are
> > diverted to the java.security.Policy superclass which returns an empty
> > PermissionCollection this is to avoid checking permissions twice.
> > r1358131 Fixed failing junit tests caused by change to
> > ConcurrentPolicyFile.getPermissions(CodeSource) method that now only
> > returns Permissions for privileged CodeSource and delegates up to the
> > super class java.security.Policy if the CodeSource is not privileged.
> > r1358143 seems to be some (deleted reference-collections.jar)
> > r1358709 Alter tests that fail due to ConcurrentPolicyFile delegating up
> > to java.security.Policy.getPermissions(CodeSource) when CodeSource is
> > found not to have AllPermission.  Only CodeSources that are privileged
> > have Permissions returned that contains AllPermission. This is an
> > optimisation that complies with java.security.Policy.
> > r1359548 URI spaces in codebase strings caused problems with Windows
> > platforms - fixed. Removed calls to Thread.yield().
> > r1360043
> > r1360396
> > r1361523
> > r1361645
> > r1361646
> > r1361661
> > r1361671
> > r1362432
> > r1362433
> > r1362435
> > r1362452
> > r1362463
> > r1362797
> > r1362940
> > r1363295
> > r1363313
> > r1364250
> > r1364614
> > r1366641
> > r1366657
> > r1366659
> > r1367884
> > r1367889
> > r1369328
> > r1369509
> > r1369512
> > r1369513
> > r1369533
> > r1369538
> > r1369539
> > r1369541
> > r1369570
> > r1369573
> > r1369578
> > r1369666
> > r1369771
> > r1370679
> > r1371049
> > r1371855
> > r1373770
> > r1379716
> > r1379717
> > r1379720
> > r1379725
> > r1379730
> > r1379873
> > r1384715
> > r1384716
> > r1384728
> > r1384729
> > r1384733
> > r1384734
> > r1384740
> > r1384792
> > r1384812
> > r1385061
> > r1385068
> > r1385070
> > r1385072
> > r1385073
> > r1385083
> > r1385085
> > r1388003
> > r1389755
> > r1389763
> > r1389766
> > r1389804
> > r1389823
> > r1392387
> > r1393401
> > r1393420
> > r1393421
> > r1393422
> > r1393979
> > r1394412
> > r1394431
> > r1394432
> > r1394434
> > r1394435
> > r1394437
> > r1394438
> > r1395185
> > r1395234
> > r1395235
> > r1396151
> > r1396153
> > r1396157
> > r1396166
> > r1396173
> > r1396177
> > r1396180
> > r1396183
> > r1396187
> > r1396193
> > r1396198
> > r1396199
> > r1396240
> > r1396251
> > r1396254
> > r1396303
> > r1397599
> > r1397600
> > r1397613
> > r1397824
> > r1398558
> > r1398721
> > r1398725
> > r1398739
> > r1398740
> > r1400681
> > r1400842
> > r1400937
> > r1402752
> > r1402753
> > r1402754
> > r1402755
> > r1402756
> > r1402757
> > r1402758
> > r1402759
> > r1402772
> > r1402959
> > r1402960
> > r1402961
> > r1402989
> > r1403001
> > r1404526
> > r1404527
> > r1404528
> > r1404531
> > r1404901
> > r1404907
> > r1404911
> > r1404913
> > r1406894
> > r1406926
> > r1406927
> > r1407017
> > r1407431
> > r1415845
> > r1444164
> > r1444556
> > r1444557
> > r1449248
> > r1455692
> >
> > On 2013-04-06, at 11:22 AM, Dan Creswell <dan.creswell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 6 April 2013 14:44, Dennis Reedy <dennis.reedy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On Apr 6, 2013, at 532AM, Dan Creswell wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Right so we're into brutal tradeoffs aren't we?
> > >>>
> > >>> It's beginning to smell like none of the available branches are
> > suitable
> > >>> for doing releases from. So we need a branch that is.
> > >>
> > >> AFAIK we are going to be releasing 2.2.1 from the 2.2 branch. Once
> > >> everything passes muster (Greg is running tests) we will tag the
> > branch
> > >> 2.2.1 and release.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> i.e. We shouldn't just pick a branch we have, we should get one
> > sorted
> > >> and
> > >>> right now.
> > >>>
> > >>> What are our chances of pulling just qa changes out of
> > qa-refactoring?
> > >> Have
> > >>> we at least got changesets that don't mix concurrency fixes with
> > anything
> > >>> other than concurrency related changes to tests?
> > >>
> > >> You are talking 2.3.0 here? I though qa-trunk was being used for
> > that?
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Peter is having some comms trouble looks like so I'll leave it at an
> > open
> > > question:
> > >
> > > Have we got a shared, agreed view of what unreleased code changes are
> > in
> > > which branch?
> > >
> > >
> > >> Dennis
> >
> >
> >
>

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