gmane.comp.java.ops4j.general

Re: Commit Access?

Toni Menzel — 2012-05-18T06:26:19

Great news! Welcome to OPS4J, Matt!

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Andreas Pieber <anpieber-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Commit Access?

Andreas Pieber — 2012-05-18T04:28:33

ahhhh, some quirks in our setup; should be corrected now...

Kind regards,
Andreas

P.s.: welcome to the team Matt!

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Matt Brozowski <brozow-nxDa5Vqj8z5AfugRpC6u6w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Commit Access?

Matt Brozowski — 2012-05-18T04:00:13

On May 17, 2012, at 11:24 PM, Andreas Pieber wrote:


That sounds great Andreas... Thanks... I don't seem to have commit access yet so I did create a pull request here:

https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.vaadin/pull/1

Not sure if there's some configuration issue or something but hopefully it'll get worked out.

Thanks again,
Matt

Re: Commit Access?

Andreas Pieber — 2012-05-18T03:24:28

basically ops4j is all about asking for forgiveness instead of
permission --> push directly; nevertheless, if you're not sure about a
change and want someone else to look over it feel free to create a
pull request and someone else will look over it first.

Kind regards,
Andreas

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Matt Brozowski <brozow-nxDa5Vqj8z5AfugRpC6u6w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Commit Access?

Matt Brozowski — 2012-05-17T22:12:27

On May 17, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:


I've made an issue and some changes to the code but I'm not sure how to submit a change to you?  Do you use the fork and pull? or can I commit directly?  

Sorry for my newbie-ishness.

Matt

Re: Commit Access?

Achim Nierbeck — 2012-05-17T19:04:04

Hi Matt,

granted and welcome to the team :)


Achim

2012/5/17 Matt Brozowski <brozow-nxDa5Vqj8z5AfugRpC6u6w< at >public.gmane.org>:

Re: Commit Access?

Matt Brozowski — 2012-05-17T18:57:38

Having found some earlier email on this. Can someone please add 'brozow' to the OPS4J group on github?  I was hoping to collaborate with Achim on the Pax for Vaadin project.

Thanks,
Matt Brozowski

On May 17, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Matt Brozowski wrote:

Commit Access?

Matt Brozowski — 2012-05-17T18:25:26

I haven't had the opportunity to commit to PAX in sometime.  Is it still open to everyone?  Do I need to request access or something?

Thanks,
Matt

Re: [Pax Web] Applying a servlet filter to a servlet exported fromanother bundle.

Achim Nierbeck — 2012-05-16T18:49:32

Hi,

to straighten some things up here on the list,
Pax Web works as designed and as the OSGi spec requests.
Never the less there are some thoughts on [1] to introduce a
"shared context".
There is also a issue [2] open for this.

regards, Achim

[1] - http://wiki.osgi.org/wiki/WebExperience
[2] - https://team.ops4j.org/browse/PAXWEB-344

Am 16.05.2012 13:26, schrieb Jose Padilla:

Re: [Pax Web] Applying a servlet filter to a servlet exportedfromanother bundle.

Jose Padilla — 2012-05-16T11:26:38

Hi, 

I'm sorry but I cannot help you. It turns out that I'm having the same problem. 
Because of It's been a long time from your question I was wondering if you could 
solve it finally.

Thanks,
Jose

Re: Change default release process

Andreas Pieber — 2012-05-16T05:51:34

TBH I think this is nothing we could really fix in the root. This one
is rather a conceptional problem someone cooked up. We should rather
deploy EVERYTHING by default in the release profile. There could be
(optionally) additional profiles which e.g. skip the itests, but this
shouldn't be the default.

0.02€

Kind regards,
Andreas

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Harald Wellmann
<hwellmann.de-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Change default release process

Andreas Pieber — 2012-05-16T05:49:36

Typically remote tags are created automatically (or will once I'm
finished) doing mvn release:prepare release:perform (well, they'll be
pushed asap they're created locally). This behavior though has one big
disadvantage. Assume that you've missed anything in the release
process (e.g. your uploaded artifacts are rejected by
oss.sonatype.org, or anything else). If your tags/branches are
directly pushed to your remote repo you need to start over again with
a completely new release and tag (since you don't want to change the
history upstream). BUT if you created the tags and commits only
locally you can first complete the release and IFF everything went
fine you push the commits and tags; otherwise simply throw them away
and start anew.

Hope this makes it clear now.

BTW, yes I'll update the Release page too.

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Harald Wellmann
<hwellmann.de-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Change default release process

Harald Wellmann — 2012-05-15T18:16:26

One more thing:

We need to take care of extra stuff in special profiles.

E.g. Pax Exam has an itest profile for integration tests which should 
not be pushed to Maven Central, But that means that the POM versions of 
the itest projects don't get updated automatically by the Maven Release 
plugin and need to be bumped manually (which I did for 2.5.0-SNAPSHOT on 
the master branch).

I'm not sure if this is a point to be standardized, but at least we 
should be aware of it and mention it in the release process.

Cheers,
Harald

Re: Change default release process

Harald Wellmann — 2012-05-15T15:35:27

+1
...but don't forget to update 
http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/ops4j/Releasing :-)



Am 15.05.2012 15:18, schrieb Andreas Pieber:

Can you explain? I'd say you always want remote tags and not just local 
ones. I remember ending up with local tags only when doing a release, 
but I'm not sure why, and I'm not friends with Git anyway...

Regards,
Harald

Re: Change default release process

Toni Menzel — 2012-05-15T14:09:43

Same here:  KISS!
+1

Good move, Andy!

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Achim Nierbeck <bcanhome-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg< at >public.gmane.org>wrote:

Re: Change default release process

Achim Nierbeck — 2012-05-15T14:00:13

I'm in strong favor of KISS, therefore +1 :)

2012/5/15 Andreas Pieber <anpieber-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>:

Release train on it's way for pax wicket 0.7.9, 0.8.5, 1.0.1

Andreas Pieber — 2012-05-15T13:26:24

Those releases contain quite a view stability and compatibility
related bug-fixes. With those releases all pax-wicket branches should
be rid of it's race-problems AND compatible to Karaf 3 (OSGi 4.3 &
Aries 1.x).

If you want to have anything included into those releases now might be
a good time to step up. Otherwise I'll cut the releases within the
next days.

Kind regards,
Andreas

Change default release process

Andreas Pieber — 2012-05-15T13:18:36

Hey guys,

Formerly, as we not relied on maven central, but rather on our own
repositories we had a lot of release profiles. This is no longer
required since everything goes to central now. I would like to change
the org.ops4j/master in a way that instead of the following for
releases...

mvn -Prelease,repos.sonatype.staging
-Darguments="-Prelease,repos.sonatype.staging"
-DautoVersionSubmodules=true release:prepare release:perform

...the following will do the same...

mvn release:prepare release:perform (add this for local tags
-DconnectionUrl=scm:git:file://`pwd`)

. In addition I think we should change it that instead of ...

mvn deploy -Prepos.sonatype

...the following should do the same

mvn deploy.

Any problems with that I've missed?

Kind regards,
Andreas

p.s.: if there are no objections I'll cut 2.1.0 with those changes the next days

Re: [ANN] Pax Exam 2.4.0 Final has been released

Harald Wellmann — 2012-05-11T19:57:48

Am 11.05.2012 21:46, schrieb Toni Menzel:

...or maybe even a JDK5, given that we still have 1.5 source 
compatibility in the maven-compiler-plugin config. Then we could set up 
Hudson Matrix builds for all 3 JDKs.

Sounds like a bit of overkill, but this is really the way to go if we 
want to guarantee compatibility with older VMs.

Cheers,
Harald

Re: [ANN] Pax Exam 2.4.0 Final has been released

Toni Menzel — 2012-05-11T19:54:36

FYI:
http://team.ops4j.org/browse/INFRA-93
http://team.ops4j.org/browse/INFRA-94

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Toni Menzel <toni.menzel-YSsNZ8XkPYjQT0dZR+AlfA< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: [ANN] Pax Exam 2.4.0 Final has been released

Toni Menzel — 2012-05-11T19:46:06

Thanks for heads up, Harald! Will upgrade the JDK. Probably we we add a
JDK6 as well JDK7 builds for selected projects ?
Btw, Harald was the main driver in the 2.4.0-line, so.. big thanks to
Harald!!!! Well done!

Toni

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Harald Wellmann <
hwellmann.de-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg< at >public.gmane.org> wrote: