Discussion:
[VOTE] Release Apache Commons Pool2 2.6.1
Mark Struberg
2018-11-14 08:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Hi folks!

I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1

So far I did

* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)

The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/

The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is 17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is 982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388

I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS

I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official VOTE.

Please let me know if something went wrong so far!

LieGrue,
strub


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Mark Struberg
2018-11-14 09:13:44 UTC
Permalink
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according changes to my ASF-linked github repo

https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019

the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171

This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with GIT screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the board level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very first GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on cryptographically strong steps.

LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is 17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is 982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Mark Struberg
2018-11-14 15:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Oki, now the full VOTE text!

I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.


The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/

The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is 17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is 982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388

I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS

I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according changes to my ASF-linked github repo

https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019

the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171

This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.

Site will be updated once the release has passed.

Please VOTE:

[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_ is missing!)


Here is my own +1
checked:
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs


LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with GIT screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the board level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very first GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is 17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is 982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Mark Struberg
2018-11-14 16:00:34 UTC
Permalink
PS: the VOTE is open for 72h from now on.

LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is 17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is 982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_ is missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with GIT screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the board level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very first GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is 17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is 982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Gary Gregory
2018-11-14 16:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Per http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#host-rc it should be OK
to host the RC sources on the Apache Nexus repo instead of the dist tree.

This is different from how we usually do RCs but is should be OK.

Not sure about using GitHub though...

Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
PS: the VOTE is open for 72h from now on.
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
Post by Mark Struberg
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_ is
missing!)
Post by Mark Struberg
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with GIT
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the board
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very first
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official
VOTE.
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Struberg
2018-11-14 16:23:55 UTC
Permalink
We've done this since 2011 in a few projects.
It might seem to not be usual for commons but if you think through then it's perfectly ok (and also acked by the board):

A GIT commit is uniquely identified by the sha1 of the parrent commit + the the diff of the commit.
That's the magic why a repo can be cloned and handled independently at all.

When the VOTE did pass we simply do 2 steps:
1.) propagate the staging repo to proper (and check in the source-release.zip to our dist/release)
2.) push/merge the changes to master and push it to our cannnonical GIT repo at the ASF. + push the tag as well.

The sha1 doesn't change during that step, so it's guaranteed that it's the exact same as we voted on.

LieGrue,
strub
Post by Gary Gregory
Per http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#host-rc it should be OK
to host the RC sources on the Apache Nexus repo instead of the dist tree.
This is different from how we usually do RCs but is should be OK.
Not sure about using GitHub though...
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
PS: the VOTE is open for 72h from now on.
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
Post by Mark Struberg
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_ is
missing!)
Post by Mark Struberg
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with GIT
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the board
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very first
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official
VOTE.
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Gary Gregory
2018-11-14 22:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Is there a site available?

Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according changes
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171>
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_ is missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
Post by Mark Struberg
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with GIT
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the board
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very first
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official
VOTE.
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Gregory
2018-11-16 20:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
For me:

$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip

Which is not what you list above. Please advise.

Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according changes
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171>
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_ is missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
Post by Mark Struberg
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with GIT
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the board
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very first
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official
VOTE.
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Romain Manni-Bucau
2018-11-16 21:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
Post by Mark Struberg
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according changes
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171>
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_ is missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
Post by Mark Struberg
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with GIT
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the board
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official
VOTE.
Post by Mark Struberg
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Gregory
2018-11-16 21:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Gary Gregory
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Gary Gregory
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
That's the problem with inventing a new release process... why do we have
BOTH:

https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
AND
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-source-release.zip

And more importantly why are they _different_? Which one will be used in
the dist/release area?

Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_
is
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with
GIT
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the board
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Romain Manni-Bucau
2018-11-16 22:10:34 UTC
Permalink
écrit
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 8:59 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
That's the problem with inventing a new release process... why do we have
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
AND
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-source-release.zip
And more importantly why are they _different_? Which one will be used in
the dist/release area?
Looks like pool didnt do its homework and kept the old assembly (src),
source-release comes from the parent and is likely the one to keep IMHO
Gary
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_
is
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the
according
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with
GIT
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the
board
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Struberg
2018-11-19 12:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Oki, I now see what you mean.

We actually have 3 source zips now.

.src.zip
.source-release.zip
src.jar

That's a mess.

There should only be 2:
* source-release.zip is the official ASF packages whole build sources. This includes the pom, build structure etc.
* src.jar is the sources which are automatically downloaded by the IDEs for debugging purpose.

We have both of them because commons-pool2 is a single-module project.
And yes, we need both of them. What we do not need is the src.zip. I have no clue yet where this comes from but it shouldn't be here.


The good news:
By leveraging native GIT we now can simply a.) drop the maven stating repo in repository.a.o and b.) drop the release branch and tag from my github account and re-roll the release without any weird RC hacks.

Will do that,
* fix the maven setup
* happy to also include the new ticket
* re-roll the release this afternoon.

LieGrue,
strub
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
écrit
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 8:59 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
That's the problem with inventing a new release process... why do we have
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
AND
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-source-release.zip
And more importantly why are they _different_? Which one will be used in
the dist/release area?
Looks like pool didnt do its homework and kept the old assembly (src),
source-release comes from the parent and is likely the one to keep IMHO
Post by Mark Struberg
Gary
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_
is
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the
according
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with
GIT
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the
board
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Rob Tompkins
2018-11-19 13:04:26 UTC
Permalink
I’d be happy to roll the release if we get master to where you want it.

Cheers,
-Rob
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, I now see what you mean.
We actually have 3 source zips now.
.src.zip
.source-release.zip
src.jar
That's a mess.
* source-release.zip is the official ASF packages whole build sources. This includes the pom, build structure etc.
* src.jar is the sources which are automatically downloaded by the IDEs for debugging purpose.
We have both of them because commons-pool2 is a single-module project.
And yes, we need both of them. What we do not need is the src.zip. I have no clue yet where this comes from but it shouldn't be here.
By leveraging native GIT we now can simply a.) drop the maven stating repo in repository.a.o and b.) drop the release branch and tag from my github account and re-roll the release without any weird RC hacks.
Will do that,
* fix the maven setup
* happy to also include the new ticket
* re-roll the release this afternoon.
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
écrit
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 8:59 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
That's the problem with inventing a new release process... why do we have
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
AND
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-source-release.zip
And more importantly why are they _different_? Which one will be used in
the dist/release area?
Looks like pool didnt do its homework and kept the old assembly (src),
source-release comes from the parent and is likely the one to keep IMHO
Post by Mark Struberg
Gary
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_
is
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the
according
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with
GIT
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the
board
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Gary Gregory
2018-11-19 15:19:12 UTC
Permalink
I’d be happy to roll the release if we get master to where you want it.
IMO, we should integrate the recent PR I mentioned and roll RC3. Note that
this vote subject thread did not contain an RC number. Sticking to the
usual process would be less troublesome IMO.

Gary
Cheers,
-Rob
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, I now see what you mean.
We actually have 3 source zips now.
.src.zip
.source-release.zip
src.jar
That's a mess.
* source-release.zip is the official ASF packages whole build sources.
This includes the pom, build structure etc.
Post by Mark Struberg
* src.jar is the sources which are automatically downloaded by the IDEs
for debugging purpose.
Post by Mark Struberg
We have both of them because commons-pool2 is a single-module project.
And yes, we need both of them. What we do not need is the src.zip. I
have no clue yet where this comes from but it shouldn't be here.
Post by Mark Struberg
By leveraging native GIT we now can simply a.) drop the maven stating
repo in repository.a.o and b.) drop the release branch and tag from my
github account and re-roll the release without any weird RC hacks.
Post by Mark Struberg
Will do that,
* fix the maven setup
* happy to also include the new ticket
* re-roll the release this afternoon.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 16.11.2018 um 23:10 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
écrit
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 8:59 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
That's the problem with inventing a new release process... why do we
have
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Post by Mark Struberg
AND
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-source-release.zip
Post by Mark Struberg
And more importantly why are they _different_? Which one will be used
in
Post by Mark Struberg
the dist/release area?
Looks like pool didnt do its homework and kept the old assembly (src),
source-release comes from the parent and is likely the one to keep IMHO
Gary
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something
_important_
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
is
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the
according
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with
GIT
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the
board
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the
very
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Steitz
2018-11-19 15:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
I’d be happy to roll the release if we get master to where you want it.
IMO, we should integrate the recent PR I mentioned and roll RC3.
Note that this vote subject thread did not contain an RC number.
Sticking to the usual process would be less troublesome IMO.
I have not had a chance to fully review and am not really active in
[pool] any more, but I did notice that the fix for POOL-356 is
missing a null check between these two added statements:

 PooledObject<T> freshPooled = create();
idleObjects.put(freshPooled);

create() can return null and while in general it won't in this
activation context, given the lack of sync control, it is possible
that a return hits between the if test and execution resulting in no
capacity to create.

I also notice some system.outs made it into the test code in one of
the commits related to POOL-340.

Phil
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Post by Rob Tompkins
Cheers,
-Rob
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, I now see what you mean.
We actually have 3 source zips now.
.src.zip
.source-release.zip
src.jar
That's a mess.
* source-release.zip is the official ASF packages whole build sources.
This includes the pom, build structure etc.
Post by Mark Struberg
* src.jar is the sources which are automatically downloaded by the IDEs
for debugging purpose.
Post by Mark Struberg
We have both of them because commons-pool2 is a single-module project.
And yes, we need both of them. What we do not need is the src.zip. I
have no clue yet where this comes from but it shouldn't be here.
Post by Mark Struberg
By leveraging native GIT we now can simply a.) drop the maven stating
repo in repository.a.o and b.) drop the release branch and tag from my
github account and re-roll the release without any weird RC hacks.
Post by Mark Struberg
Will do that,
* fix the maven setup
* happy to also include the new ticket
* re-roll the release this afternoon.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 16.11.2018 um 23:10 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
écrit
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 8:59 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
That's the problem with inventing a new release process... why do we
have
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Post by Mark Struberg
AND
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-source-release.zip
Post by Mark Struberg
And more importantly why are they _different_? Which one will be used
in
Post by Mark Struberg
the dist/release area?
Looks like pool didnt do its homework and kept the old assembly (src),
source-release comes from the parent and is likely the one to keep IMHO
Gary
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something
_important_
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
is
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the
according
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with
GIT
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the
board
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the
very
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Mark Struberg
2018-11-19 20:17:36 UTC
Permalink
+1 for the null check.

Do you want to re-open the ticket and create a patch?

I've created a unit test which proves my original problem with the dead-lock.
So any improvement should be rather on the safe side from here on.


Regarding the RC: this is really not needed anymore when working with GIT as nothing gets pushed/released to the main repository! See the config changes I did to the maven-release-plugin.

txs and LieGrue,
strub
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Rob Tompkins
I’d be happy to roll the release if we get master to where you want it.
IMO, we should integrate the recent PR I mentioned and roll RC3. Note that this vote subject thread did not contain an RC number. Sticking to the usual process would be less troublesome IMO.
PooledObject<T> freshPooled = create();
idleObjects.put(freshPooled);
create() can return null and while in general it won't in this activation context, given the lack of sync control, it is possible that a return hits between the if test and execution resulting in no capacity to create.
I also notice some system.outs made it into the test code in one of the commits related to POOL-340.
Phil
Gary
Post by Rob Tompkins
Cheers,
-Rob
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, I now see what you mean.
We actually have 3 source zips now.
.src.zip
.source-release.zip
src.jar
That's a mess.
* source-release.zip is the official ASF packages whole build sources.
This includes the pom, build structure etc.
Post by Mark Struberg
* src.jar is the sources which are automatically downloaded by the IDEs
for debugging purpose.
Post by Mark Struberg
We have both of them because commons-pool2 is a single-module project.
And yes, we need both of them. What we do not need is the src.zip. I
have no clue yet where this comes from but it shouldn't be here.
Post by Mark Struberg
By leveraging native GIT we now can simply a.) drop the maven stating
repo in repository.a.o and b.) drop the release branch and tag from my
github account and re-roll the release without any weird RC hacks.
Post by Mark Struberg
Will do that,
* fix the maven setup
* happy to also include the new ticket
* re-roll the release this afternoon.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 16.11.2018 um 23:10 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
écrit
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 8:59 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
That's the problem with inventing a new release process... why do we
have
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Post by Mark Struberg
AND
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-source-release.zip
Post by Mark Struberg
And more importantly why are they _different_? Which one will be used
in
Post by Mark Struberg
the dist/release area?
Looks like pool didnt do its homework and kept the old assembly (src),
source-release comes from the parent and is likely the one to keep IMHO
Gary
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something
_important_
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
is
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the
according
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with
GIT
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the
board
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the
very
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Gary Gregory
2018-11-19 21:31:32 UTC
Permalink
A unit test? Yes please! :-)

Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
+1 for the null check.
Do you want to re-open the ticket and create a patch?
I've created a unit test which proves my original problem with the dead-lock.
So any improvement should be rather on the safe side from here on.
Regarding the RC: this is really not needed anymore when working with GIT
as nothing gets pushed/released to the main repository! See the config
changes I did to the maven-release-plugin.
txs and LieGrue,
strub
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
I’d be happy to roll the release if we get master to where you want
it.
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
IMO, we should integrate the recent PR I mentioned and roll RC3. Note
that this vote subject thread did not contain an RC number. Sticking to the
usual process would be less troublesome IMO.
Post by Phil Steitz
I have not had a chance to fully review and am not really active in
[pool] any more, but I did notice that the fix for POOL-356 is missing a
Post by Phil Steitz
PooledObject<T> freshPooled = create();
idleObjects.put(freshPooled);
create() can return null and while in general it won't in this
activation context, given the lack of sync control, it is possible that a
return hits between the if test and execution resulting in no capacity to
create.
Post by Phil Steitz
I also notice some system.outs made it into the test code in one of the
commits related to POOL-340.
Post by Phil Steitz
Phil
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Cheers,
-Rob
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, I now see what you mean.
We actually have 3 source zips now.
.src.zip
.source-release.zip
src.jar
That's a mess.
* source-release.zip is the official ASF packages whole build sources.
This includes the pom, build structure etc.
Post by Mark Struberg
* src.jar is the sources which are automatically downloaded by the
IDEs
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
for debugging purpose.
Post by Mark Struberg
We have both of them because commons-pool2 is a single-module project.
And yes, we need both of them. What we do not need is the src.zip. I
have no clue yet where this comes from but it shouldn't be here.
Post by Mark Struberg
By leveraging native GIT we now can simply a.) drop the maven stating
repo in repository.a.o and b.) drop the release branch and tag from my
github account and re-roll the release without any weird RC hacks.
Post by Mark Struberg
Will do that,
* fix the maven setup
* happy to also include the new ticket
* re-roll the release this afternoon.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 16.11.2018 um 23:10 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
a
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
écrit
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 8:59 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
That's the problem with inventing a new release process... why do we
have
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
AND
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-source-release.zip
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
And more importantly why are they _different_? Which one will be
used
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
in
Post by Mark Struberg
the dist/release area?
Looks like pool didnt do its homework and kept the old assembly
(src),
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
source-release comes from the parent and is likely the one to keep
IMHO
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Gary
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something
_important_
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
is
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the
according
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar
with
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
GIT
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the
board
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the
very
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based
on
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Steitz
2018-11-19 21:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Sorry ENOTIME, but I remembered that there is a nullsafe
addIdleObject (see how addObject does it).  In fact, you might just
replace the manual create and add with just a call to addObject
itself.  That will also passivate the object before putting it into
the pool, which is IIRC an invariant (objects put into the idle pool
are passivated first).

If you want to see the current code blow up, you will have to
arrange a test with lots of borrows and returns mixed with destroys
on validate and hope you can get the if test to succeed and then a
return/borrow sequence before the create.

Phil
Post by Gary Gregory
A unit test? Yes please! :-)
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
+1 for the null check.
Do you want to re-open the ticket and create a patch?
I've created a unit test which proves my original problem with the dead-lock.
So any improvement should be rather on the safe side from here on.
Regarding the RC: this is really not needed anymore when working with GIT
as nothing gets pushed/released to the main repository! See the config
changes I did to the maven-release-plugin.
txs and LieGrue,
strub
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
I’d be happy to roll the release if we get master to where you want
it.
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
IMO, we should integrate the recent PR I mentioned and roll RC3. Note
that this vote subject thread did not contain an RC number. Sticking to the
usual process would be less troublesome IMO.
Post by Phil Steitz
I have not had a chance to fully review and am not really active in
[pool] any more, but I did notice that the fix for POOL-356 is missing a
Post by Phil Steitz
PooledObject<T> freshPooled = create();
idleObjects.put(freshPooled);
create() can return null and while in general it won't in this
activation context, given the lack of sync control, it is possible that a
return hits between the if test and execution resulting in no capacity to
create.
Post by Phil Steitz
I also notice some system.outs made it into the test code in one of the
commits related to POOL-340.
Post by Phil Steitz
Phil
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Post by Rob Tompkins
Cheers,
-Rob
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, I now see what you mean.
We actually have 3 source zips now.
.src.zip
.source-release.zip
src.jar
That's a mess.
* source-release.zip is the official ASF packages whole build sources.
This includes the pom, build structure etc.
Post by Mark Struberg
* src.jar is the sources which are automatically downloaded by the
IDEs
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
for debugging purpose.
Post by Mark Struberg
We have both of them because commons-pool2 is a single-module project.
And yes, we need both of them. What we do not need is the src.zip. I
have no clue yet where this comes from but it shouldn't be here.
Post by Mark Struberg
By leveraging native GIT we now can simply a.) drop the maven stating
repo in repository.a.o and b.) drop the release branch and tag from my
github account and re-roll the release without any weird RC hacks.
Post by Mark Struberg
Will do that,
* fix the maven setup
* happy to also include the new ticket
* re-roll the release this afternoon.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 16.11.2018 um 23:10 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
a
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
écrit
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 8:59 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
That's the problem with inventing a new release process... why do we
have
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
AND
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-source-release.zip
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
And more importantly why are they _different_? Which one will be
used
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
in
Post by Mark Struberg
the dist/release area?
Looks like pool didnt do its homework and kept the old assembly
(src),
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
source-release comes from the parent and is likely the one to keep
IMHO
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Gary
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something
_important_
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
is
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the
according
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar
with
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
GIT
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the
board
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the
very
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based
on
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Gary Gregory
2018-11-19 22:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Steitz
Sorry ENOTIME, but I remembered that there is a nullsafe
addIdleObject (see how addObject does it). In fact, you might just
replace the manual create and add with just a call to addObject
itself. That will also passivate the object before putting it into
the pool, which is IIRC an invariant (objects put into the idle pool
are passivated first).
If you want to see the current code blow up, you will have to
arrange a test with lots of borrows and returns mixed with destroys
on validate and hope you can get the if test to succeed and then a
return/borrow sequence before the create.
Like this then:

diff --git
a/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/pool2/impl/GenericObjectPool.java
b/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/pool2/impl/GenericObjectPool.java
index 0575f7e..6d81dbc 100644
--- a/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/pool2/impl/GenericObjectPool.java
+++ b/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/pool2/impl/GenericObjectPool.java
@@ -920,8 +920,7 @@
// In case there are already threads waiting on something in
the pool
// (e.g. idleObjects.takeFirst(); then we need to provide them
a fresh instance.
// Otherwise they will be stuck forever (or until timeout)
- PooledObject<T> freshPooled = create();
- idleObjects.put(freshPooled);
+ addObject();
}
}

But causes a failure:

[INFO] Running org.apache.commons.pool2.impl.TestAbandonedObjectPool
[ERROR] Tests run: 6, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
12.253 s <<< FAILURE! - in
org.apache.commons.pool2.impl.TestAbandonedObjectPool
[ERROR]
testAbandonedInvalidate(org.apache.commons.pool2.impl.TestAbandonedObjectPool)
Time elapsed: 3.668 s <<< FAILURE!
java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<5> but was:<4>
at
org.apache.commons.pool2.impl.TestAbandonedObjectPool.testAbandonedInvalidate(TestAbandonedObjectPool.java:202)

Maybe this is due to my busy CPU, not sure.

Gary
Post by Phil Steitz
Phil
Post by Gary Gregory
A unit test? Yes please! :-)
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
+1 for the null check.
Do you want to re-open the ticket and create a patch?
I've created a unit test which proves my original problem with the dead-lock.
So any improvement should be rather on the safe side from here on.
Regarding the RC: this is really not needed anymore when working with
GIT
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
as nothing gets pushed/released to the main repository! See the config
changes I did to the maven-release-plugin.
txs and LieGrue,
strub
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
I’d be happy to roll the release if we get master to where you want
it.
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
IMO, we should integrate the recent PR I mentioned and roll RC3. Note
that this vote subject thread did not contain an RC number. Sticking to
the
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
usual process would be less troublesome IMO.
Post by Phil Steitz
I have not had a chance to fully review and am not really active in
[pool] any more, but I did notice that the fix for POOL-356 is missing a
Post by Phil Steitz
PooledObject<T> freshPooled = create();
idleObjects.put(freshPooled);
create() can return null and while in general it won't in this
activation context, given the lack of sync control, it is possible that
a
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
return hits between the if test and execution resulting in no capacity
to
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
create.
Post by Phil Steitz
I also notice some system.outs made it into the test code in one of the
commits related to POOL-340.
Post by Phil Steitz
Phil
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Cheers,
-Rob
On Nov 19, 2018, at 7:18 AM, Mark Struberg
Oki, I now see what you mean.
We actually have 3 source zips now.
.src.zip
.source-release.zip
src.jar
That's a mess.
* source-release.zip is the official ASF packages whole build
sources.
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
This includes the pom, build structure etc.
* src.jar is the sources which are automatically downloaded by the
IDEs
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
for debugging purpose.
We have both of them because commons-pool2 is a single-module
project.
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
And yes, we need both of them. What we do not need is the src.zip. I
have no clue yet where this comes from but it shouldn't be here.
By leveraging native GIT we now can simply a.) drop the maven
stating
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
repo in repository.a.o and b.) drop the release branch and tag from
my
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
github account and re-roll the release without any weird RC hacks.
Will do that,
* fix the maven setup
* happy to also include the new ticket
* re-roll the release this afternoon.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 16.11.2018 um 23:10 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
a
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
a
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
écrit
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 8:59 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
That's the problem with inventing a new release process... why do
we
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
have
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
AND
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-source-release.zip
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
And more importantly why are they _different_? Which one will be
used
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
in
the dist/release area?
Looks like pool didnt do its homework and kept the old assembly
(src),
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
source-release comes from the parent and is likely the one to keep
IMHO
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the
according
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
changes
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something
_important_
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
is
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the
according
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar
with
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
GIT
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on
the
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
board
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as
the
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
very
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is
based
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
on
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS
file
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Gary Gregory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Struberg
2018-11-23 09:57:16 UTC
Permalink
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was needed to prevent a dead-lock....

*grabbing a fresh coffee*
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to prevent a dead-pool
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Gary Gregory
2018-11-23 15:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was
needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee*
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to
prevent a dead-pool
Hi Mark,

Would you mind adding some comments to the code to help future maintainers?

Gary (currently sipping coffee)
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Struberg
2018-11-26 13:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Hi Gary!

I've added multi-line comments in the middle of code blocks I touched.
e.g. https://github.com/apache/commons-pool/blob/016a1f67263fe1cde1d910dc7002d972811951c5/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/pool2/impl/GenericObjectPool.java#L919

I also tried to write extensive commit comments.

LieGrue,
strub
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was
needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee*
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to
prevent a dead-pool
Hi Mark,
Would you mind adding some comments to the code to help future maintainers?
Gary (currently sipping coffee)
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Rob Tompkins
2018-11-26 13:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi Gary!
I've added multi-line comments in the middle of code blocks I touched.
e.g. https://github.com/apache/commons-pool/blob/016a1f67263fe1cde1d910dc7002d972811951c5/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/pool2/impl/GenericObjectPool.java#L919
I also tried to write extensive commit comments.
Sounds good. I’ll try to get to starting the release today.

-Rob
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was
needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee*
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to
prevent a dead-pool
Hi Mark,
Would you mind adding some comments to the code to help future maintainers?
Gary (currently sipping coffee)
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Mark Struberg
2018-11-26 13:29:14 UTC
Permalink
I think we still need to address what happens if null gets returned in create().
This was something I missed.
Not sure if it got addressed in the meantime?

LieGrue,
strub
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi Gary!
I've added multi-line comments in the middle of code blocks I touched.
e.g. https://github.com/apache/commons-pool/blob/016a1f67263fe1cde1d910dc7002d972811951c5/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/pool2/impl/GenericObjectPool.java#L919
I also tried to write extensive commit comments.
Sounds good. I’ll try to get to starting the release today.
-Rob
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was
needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee*
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to
prevent a dead-pool
Hi Mark,
Would you mind adding some comments to the code to help future maintainers?
Gary (currently sipping coffee)
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Phil Steitz
2018-11-23 15:51:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee* le
I am sorry I did not look carefully enough at this issue before
reviewing the change.  After reviewing the DBCP ticket (OP likely
unrelated, IMO), I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX.
That sounds harsh, but it seems to me that the obvious solution here
is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1.  What the fix does is
effectively that, without changing the setting.  If waiting threads
die or time out while the create is happening, there will be an idle
instance in the pool and for certain one is being put there on the
way to getting checked back out.  See comments on POOL-327.

If the consensus is to insert this workaround to enable the pool to
retain liveness in the use case, it's probably best to use
ensureIdle(1, false) (see POOL-240).  It could be that just moving
the call to ensureIdle inside destroy would be OK.  But as stated
above, this breaks the maxIdle contract.

I see that your original report / use case here is from DBCP, Mark. 
Was it prepared statements or connections that you were trying to
limit to 0 idle?  Is there a reason that just using 1 would not work?

Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to prevent a dead-pool
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Rob Tompkins
2018-11-23 18:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee* le
I am sorry I did not look carefully enough at this issue before reviewing the change. After reviewing the DBCP ticket (OP likely unrelated, IMO), I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it seems to me that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1. What the fix does is effectively that, without changing the setting. If waiting threads die or time out while the create is happening, there will be an idle instance in the pool and for certain one is being put there on the way to getting checked back out. See comments on POOL-327.
If the consensus is to insert this workaround to enable the pool to retain liveness in the use case, it's probably best to use ensureIdle(1, false) (see POOL-240). It could be that just moving the call to ensureIdle inside destroy would be OK. But as stated above, this breaks the maxIdle contract.
I see that your original report / use case here is from DBCP, Mark. Was it prepared statements or connections that you were trying to limit to 0 idle? Is there a reason that just using 1 would not work?
Ok holding off on RC3 then from master. Right?

-Rob
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to prevent a dead-pool
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Gary Gregory
2018-11-24 00:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was
needed to prevent a dead-lock....
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Mark Struberg
*grabbing a fresh coffee* le
I am sorry I did not look carefully enough at this issue before
reviewing the change. After reviewing the DBCP ticket (OP likely
unrelated, IMO), I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That
sounds harsh, but it seems to me that the obvious solution here is for the
user to set maxIdle to at least 1. What the fix does is effectively that,
without changing the setting. If waiting threads die or time out while the
create is happening, there will be an idle instance in the pool and for
certain one is being put there on the way to getting checked back out. See
comments on POOL-327.
Post by Phil Steitz
If the consensus is to insert this workaround to enable the pool to
retain liveness in the use case, it's probably best to use ensureIdle(1,
false) (see POOL-240). It could be that just moving the call to ensureIdle
inside destroy would be OK. But as stated above, this breaks the maxIdle
contract.
Post by Phil Steitz
I see that your original report / use case here is from DBCP, Mark. Was
it prepared statements or connections that you were trying to limit to 0
idle? Is there a reason that just using 1 would not work?
Ok holding off on RC3 then from master. Right?
I would think that we at least need to documentation added to the code
someplace to help future maintainers.

Are there code changes coming?

Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
-Rob
Post by Phil Steitz
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to
prevent a dead-pool
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Struberg
2018-11-26 13:19:12 UTC
Permalink
Hi Phil!
I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it seems to me
that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1.
I thought about that as well!
Setting maxIdle to 1 will make it less likely but a deadlock will STILL happen.

So I fear we really need to tackle this. Stackoverflow and our own bug tracker is full of such reports :(

LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee* le
I am sorry I did not look carefully enough at this issue before reviewing the change. After reviewing the DBCP ticket (OP likely unrelated, IMO), I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it seems to me that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1. What the fix does is effectively that, without changing the setting. If waiting threads die or time out while the create is happening, there will be an idle instance in the pool and for certain one is being put there on the way to getting checked back out. See comments on POOL-327.
If the consensus is to insert this workaround to enable the pool to retain liveness in the use case, it's probably best to use ensureIdle(1, false) (see POOL-240). It could be that just moving the call to ensureIdle inside destroy would be OK. But as stated above, this breaks the maxIdle contract.
I see that your original report / use case here is from DBCP, Mark. Was it prepared statements or connections that you were trying to limit to 0 idle? Is there a reason that just using 1 would not work?
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to prevent a dead-pool
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Phil Steitz
2018-11-26 15:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi Phil!
Let me start by repeating that other than trying to help diagnose
bugs and answer user questions, I don't really work on [pool] any
more, so I don't really have any standing here.  You are the RM, so
it is completely up to you and the active Commons committers to
decide what to do with the code.  So fine to ignore my comments.
Post by Mark Struberg
I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it seems to me
that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1.
I thought about that as well!
Setting maxIdle to 1 will make it less likely but a deadlock will STILL happen.
I am not sure this is right.  If maxIdle >0, the fix for POOL-240 (a
similar liveness issue) should kick in and work.  Each time a
validation or passivation failure occurs on return, there is a call
to ensureIdle that will create a new instance and add it to the pool
if there is capacity to do so.
Post by Mark Struberg
So I fear we really need to tackle this. Stackoverflow and our own bug tracker is full of such reports :(
I see one additional actual report on GKOP (the other linked issue,
which should be similarly patched if the consensus is to do this for
GOP). The vast majority of the liveness reports that we have gotten
over the years in DBCP and pool are just pool exhausted due to
failure to return instances.

The workaround violating maxIdle will restore liveness, but is
likely the wrong solution here.  Again, up to you guys to judge.
Note that when you specify maxIdle equal to 1 you are telling the
pool to destroy all returning instances.  To use the pool in this
way is silly, IMO.  With your patch, new instances are still created
for *every* borrow.  The pool and all of its machinery is doing
nothing other than tracking the number of active instances and
making sure life cycle events are fired.  If you want the semantics
of returning object with threads waiting to be that the returning
object is passivated, activated and handed directly to a waiter
without every hitting the idle instance pool, that would require
rewriting a fair bit of the borrow / return code.  It is an
interesting idea and would solve the POOL-240 as well.

One final comment.  If you stick with something like what is in the
code now, you should make sure to passivate the new instance before
putting it into the pool.  I just noticed that ensureIdle does not
do that, which I think is a bug in that method.  So if you want to
proceed with this fix, I would recommend

1.  Move the ensureIdle activations added in POOL-240 into destroy
itself.
2.  Add passivation to ensureIdle
3.  Implement corresponding workaround for GKOP

Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee* le
I am sorry I did not look carefully enough at this issue before reviewing the change. After reviewing the DBCP ticket (OP likely unrelated, IMO), I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it seems to me that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1. What the fix does is effectively that, without changing the setting. If waiting threads die or time out while the create is happening, there will be an idle instance in the pool and for certain one is being put there on the way to getting checked back out. See comments on POOL-327.
If the consensus is to insert this workaround to enable the pool to retain liveness in the use case, it's probably best to use ensureIdle(1, false) (see POOL-240). It could be that just moving the call to ensureIdle inside destroy would be OK. But as stated above, this breaks the maxIdle contract.
I see that your original report / use case here is from DBCP, Mark. Was it prepared statements or connections that you were trying to limit to 0 idle? Is there a reason that just using 1 would not work?
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to prevent a dead-pool
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Phil Steitz
2018-11-26 18:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi Phil!
Let me start by repeating that other than trying to help diagnose
bugs and answer user questions, I don't really work on [pool] any
more, so I don't really have any standing here.  You are the RM,
so it is completely up to you and the active Commons committers to
decide what to do with the code.  So fine to ignore my comments.
Post by Mark Struberg
  I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds
harsh, but it seems to me
that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1.
I thought about that as well!
Setting maxIdle to 1 will make it less likely but a deadlock will STILL happen.
I am not sure this is right.  If maxIdle >0, the fix for POOL-240
(a similar liveness issue) should kick in and work.  Each time a
validation or passivation failure occurs on return, there is a
call to ensureIdle that will create a new instance and add it to
the pool if there is capacity to do so.
Post by Mark Struberg
So I fear we really need to tackle this. Stackoverflow and our
own bug tracker is full of such reports :(
I see one additional actual report on GKOP (the other linked
issue, which should be similarly patched if the consensus is to do
this for GOP). The vast majority of the liveness reports that we
have gotten over the years in DBCP and pool are just pool
exhausted due to failure to return instances.
The workaround violating maxIdle will restore liveness, but is
likely the wrong solution here.  Again, up to you guys to judge.
Note that when you specify maxIdle equal to 1 you are telling the
pool to destroy all returning instances.  To use the pool in this
way is silly, IMO.  With your patch, new instances are still
created for *every* borrow.  The pool and all of its machinery is
doing nothing other than tracking the number of active instances
and making sure life cycle events are fired.  If you want the
semantics of returning object with threads waiting to be that the
returning object is passivated, activated and handed directly to a
waiter without every hitting the idle instance pool, that would
require rewriting a fair bit of the borrow / return code.  It is
an interesting idea and would solve the POOL-240 as well.
One final comment.  If you stick with something like what is in
the code now, you should make sure to passivate the new instance
before putting it into the pool.  I just noticed that ensureIdle
does not do that, which I think is a bug in that method.  So if
you want to proceed with this fix, I would recommend
1.  Move the ensureIdle activations added in POOL-240 into destroy
itself.
2.  Add passivation to ensureIdle
Sorry, looks to me like this is not actually necessary.  So I take
back my comment that this is a bug in ensureIdle.
Post by Phil Steitz
3. Implement corresponding workaround for GKOP
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle
pool) was needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee* le
I am sorry I did not look carefully enough at this issue before
reviewing the change.  After reviewing the DBCP ticket (OP
likely unrelated, IMO), I think that the right answer here is
WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it seems to me that the obvious
solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1. 
What the fix does is effectively that, without changing the
setting.  If waiting threads die or time out while the create is
happening, there will be an idle instance in the pool and for
certain one is being put there on the way to getting checked
back out.  See comments on POOL-327.
If the consensus is to insert this workaround to enable the pool
to retain liveness in the use case, it's probably best to use
ensureIdle(1, false) (see POOL-240).  It could be that just
moving the call to ensureIdle inside destroy would be OK.  But
as stated above, this breaks the maxIdle contract.
I see that your original report / use case here is from DBCP,
Mark.  Was it prepared statements or connections that you were
trying to limit to 0 idle?  Is there a reason that just using 1
would not work?
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was
needed to prevent a dead-pool
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Phil Steitz
2018-11-26 20:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi Phil!
Let me start by repeating that other than trying to help diagnose
bugs and answer user questions, I don't really work on [pool] any
more, so I don't really have any standing here.  You are the RM,
so it is completely up to you and the active Commons committers to
decide what to do with the code.  So fine to ignore my comments.
Post by Mark Struberg
  I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds
harsh, but it seems to me
that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1.
I thought about that as well!
Setting maxIdle to 1 will make it less likely but a deadlock will STILL happen.
I am not sure this is right.  If maxIdle >0, the fix for POOL-240
(a similar liveness issue) should kick in and work.  Each time a
validation or passivation failure occurs on return, there is a
call to ensureIdle that will create a new instance and add it to
the pool if there is capacity to do so.
Post by Mark Struberg
So I fear we really need to tackle this. Stackoverflow and our
own bug tracker is full of such reports :(
I see one additional actual report on GKOP (the other linked
issue, which should be similarly patched if the consensus is to do
this for GOP). The vast majority of the liveness reports that we
have gotten over the years in DBCP and pool are just pool
exhausted due to failure to return instances.
The workaround violating maxIdle will restore liveness, but is
likely the wrong solution here.  Again, up to you guys to judge.
Note that when you specify maxIdle equal to 1
Crap.  Meant 0 there.
Post by Phil Steitz
you are telling the pool to destroy all returning instances.  To
use the pool in this way is silly, IMO.  With your patch, new
instances are still created for *every* borrow.  The pool and all
of its machinery is doing nothing other than tracking the number
of active instances and making sure life cycle events are fired. 
If you want the semantics of returning object with threads waiting
to be that the returning object is passivated, activated and
handed directly to a waiter without every hitting the idle
instance pool, that would require rewriting a fair bit of the
borrow / return code.  It is an interesting idea and would solve
the POOL-240 as well.
One final comment.  If you stick with something like what is in
the code now, you should make sure to passivate the new instance
before putting it into the pool.  I just noticed that ensureIdle
does not do that, which I think is a bug in that method.  So if
you want to proceed with this fix, I would recommend
1.  Move the ensureIdle activations added in POOL-240 into destroy
itself.
2.  Add passivation to ensureIdle
3.  Implement corresponding workaround for GKOP
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle
pool) was needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee* le
I am sorry I did not look carefully enough at this issue before
reviewing the change.  After reviewing the DBCP ticket (OP
likely unrelated, IMO), I think that the right answer here is
WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it seems to me that the obvious
solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1. 
What the fix does is effectively that, without changing the
setting.  If waiting threads die or time out while the create is
happening, there will be an idle instance in the pool and for
certain one is being put there on the way to getting checked
back out.  See comments on POOL-327.
If the consensus is to insert this workaround to enable the pool
to retain liveness in the use case, it's probably best to use
ensureIdle(1, false) (see POOL-240).  It could be that just
moving the call to ensureIdle inside destroy would be OK.  But
as stated above, this breaks the maxIdle contract.
I see that your original report / use case here is from DBCP,
Mark.  Was it prepared statements or connections that you were
trying to limit to 0 idle?  Is there a reason that just using 1
would not work?
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was
needed to prevent a dead-pool
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Phil Steitz
2018-11-28 03:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi Phil!
Let me start by repeating that other than trying to help diagnose
bugs and answer user questions, I don't really work on [pool] any
more, so I don't really have any standing here.  You are the RM,
so it is completely up to you and the active Commons committers
to decide what to do with the code.  So fine to ignore my comments.
Post by Mark Struberg
  I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds
harsh, but it seems to me
that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1.
I thought about that as well!
Setting maxIdle to 1 will make it less likely but a deadlock
will STILL happen.
I am not sure this is right.  If maxIdle >0, the fix for POOL-240
(a similar liveness issue) should kick in and work. Each time a
validation or passivation failure occurs on return, there is a
call to ensureIdle that will create a new instance and add it to
the pool if there is capacity to do so.
Post by Mark Struberg
So I fear we really need to tackle this. Stackoverflow and our
own bug tracker is full of such reports :(
I see one additional actual report on GKOP (the other linked
issue, which should be similarly patched if the consensus is to
do this for GOP). The vast majority of the liveness reports that
we have gotten over the years in DBCP and pool are just pool
exhausted due to failure to return instances.
The workaround violating maxIdle will restore liveness, but is
likely the wrong solution here.  Again, up to you guys to judge.
Note that when you specify maxIdle equal to 1
Crap.  Meant 0 there.
Post by Phil Steitz
you are telling the pool to destroy all returning instances.  To
use the pool in this way is silly, IMO.  With your patch, new
instances are still created for *every* borrow.  The pool and all
of its machinery is doing nothing other than tracking the number
of active instances and making sure life cycle events are fired. 
If you want the semantics of returning object with threads
waiting to be that the returning object is passivated, activated
and handed directly to a waiter without every hitting the idle
instance pool, that would require rewriting a fair bit of the
borrow / return code.  It is an interesting idea and would solve
the POOL-240 as well.
One final comment.  If you stick with something like what is in
the code now, you should make sure to passivate the new instance
before putting it into the pool.  I just noticed that ensureIdle
does not do that, which I think is a bug in that method.  So if
you want to proceed with this fix, I would recommend
1.  Move the ensureIdle activations added in POOL-240 into
destroy itself.
2.  Add passivation to ensureIdle
3.  Implement corresponding workaround for GKOP
Sorry, all.  Looking again and thinking a little more, I think the
best fix for this is actually to prevent the destroy on return in
the first place if there are take waiters.  The maxIdle invariant
gets violated with the ensureIdle or direct create() fix anyway and
just allowing the returning instance to go into the pool avoids the
needless destroy / create sequence.  A simple way to do this is just
to recode maxIdle before the destroy test in returnObject.
Instead of

final int maxIdleSave = getMaxIdle()
explicitly recode it:

// If maxIdle is set to 0 and there are take waiters, bump it to 1
// to preserve liveness.
 final int maxIdleSave = idleObjects.hasTakeWaiters() ?
Math.max(1,getMaxIdle()) : getMaxIdle();

Phil
Post by Phil Steitz
Post by Phil Steitz
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle
pool) was needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee* le
I am sorry I did not look carefully enough at this issue before
reviewing the change.  After reviewing the DBCP ticket (OP
likely unrelated, IMO), I think that the right answer here is
WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it seems to me that the
obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at
least 1.  What the fix does is effectively that, without
changing the setting.  If waiting threads die or time out while
the create is happening, there will be an idle instance in the
pool and for certain one is being put there on the way to
getting checked back out.  See comments on POOL-327.
If the consensus is to insert this workaround to enable the
pool to retain liveness in the use case, it's probably best to
use ensureIdle(1, false) (see POOL-240).  It could be that just
moving the call to ensureIdle inside destroy would be OK.  But
as stated above, this breaks the maxIdle contract.
I see that your original report / use case here is from DBCP,
Mark.  Was it prepared statements or connections that you were
trying to limit to 0 idle?  Is there a reason that just using 1
would not work?
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was
needed to prevent a dead-pool
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Mark Struberg
2018-11-28 15:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Yes, not destroying the borrowed object would be an option. I didn't want to go down that route as there are multiple reasons why a borrowed object is not valid anymore.
E.g. it could be 'consumed', it could be broken, shouldn't be used do to maxUsageTime is over, etc.
That's why I opted for calling create(). But of course, that has other potential issues :/

LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi Phil!
Let me start by repeating that other than trying to help diagnose bugs and answer user questions, I don't really work on [pool] any more, so I don't really have any standing here. You are the RM, so it is completely up to you and the active Commons committers to decide what to do with the code. So fine to ignore my comments.
Post by Mark Struberg
I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it seems to me
that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1.
I thought about that as well!
Setting maxIdle to 1 will make it less likely but a deadlock will STILL happen.
I am not sure this is right. If maxIdle >0, the fix for POOL-240 (a similar liveness issue) should kick in and work. Each time a validation or passivation failure occurs on return, there is a call to ensureIdle that will create a new instance and add it to the pool if there is capacity to do so.
Post by Mark Struberg
So I fear we really need to tackle this. Stackoverflow and our own bug tracker is full of such reports :(
I see one additional actual report on GKOP (the other linked issue, which should be similarly patched if the consensus is to do this for GOP). The vast majority of the liveness reports that we have gotten over the years in DBCP and pool are just pool exhausted due to failure to return instances.
The workaround violating maxIdle will restore liveness, but is likely the wrong solution here. Again, up to you guys to judge. Note that when you specify maxIdle equal to 1
Crap. Meant 0 there.
you are telling the pool to destroy all returning instances. To use the pool in this way is silly, IMO. With your patch, new instances are still created for *every* borrow. The pool and all of its machinery is doing nothing other than tracking the number of active instances and making sure life cycle events are fired. If you want the semantics of returning object with threads waiting to be that the returning object is passivated, activated and handed directly to a waiter without every hitting the idle instance pool, that would require rewriting a fair bit of the borrow / return code. It is an interesting idea and would solve the POOL-240 as well.
One final comment. If you stick with something like what is in the code now, you should make sure to passivate the new instance before putting it into the pool. I just noticed that ensureIdle does not do that, which I think is a bug in that method. So if you want to proceed with this fix, I would recommend
1. Move the ensureIdle activations added in POOL-240 into destroy itself.
2. Add passivation to ensureIdle
3. Implement corresponding workaround for GKOP
Sorry, all. Looking again and thinking a little more, I think the best fix for this is actually to prevent the destroy on return in the first place if there are take waiters. The maxIdle invariant gets violated with the ensureIdle or direct create() fix anyway and just allowing the returning instance to go into the pool avoids the needless destroy / create sequence. A simple way to do this is just to recode maxIdle before the destroy test in returnObject.
Instead of
final int maxIdleSave = getMaxIdle()
// If maxIdle is set to 0 and there are take waiters, bump it to 1
// to preserve liveness.
final int maxIdleSave = idleObjects.hasTakeWaiters() ? Math.max(1,getMaxIdle()) : getMaxIdle();
Phil
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee* le
I am sorry I did not look carefully enough at this issue before reviewing the change. After reviewing the DBCP ticket (OP likely unrelated, IMO), I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it seems to me that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1. What the fix does is effectively that, without changing the setting. If waiting threads die or time out while the create is happening, there will be an idle instance in the pool and for certain one is being put there on the way to getting checked back out. See comments on POOL-327.
If the consensus is to insert this workaround to enable the pool to retain liveness in the use case, it's probably best to use ensureIdle(1, false) (see POOL-240). It could be that just moving the call to ensureIdle inside destroy would be OK. But as stated above, this breaks the maxIdle contract.
I see that your original report / use case here is from DBCP, Mark. Was it prepared statements or connections that you were trying to limit to 0 idle? Is there a reason that just using 1 would not work?
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to prevent a dead-pool
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Phil Steitz
2018-11-29 01:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Struberg
Yes, not destroying the borrowed object would be an option. I didn't want to go down that route as there are multiple reasons why a borrowed object is not valid anymore.
E.g. it could be 'consumed', it could be broken, shouldn't be used do to maxUsageTime is over, etc.
Those are good things to worry about but the change I suggested below preserves all of the checks associated with validation and instance state. All it does is effectively recode maxIdle to 1 when it is set to 0 and there are take waiters.

Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
That's why I opted for calling create(). But of course, that has other potential issues :/
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi Phil!
Let me start by repeating that other than trying to help diagnose bugs and answer user questions, I don't really work on [pool] any more, so I don't really have any standing here. You are the RM, so it is completely up to you and the active Commons committers to decide what to do with the code. So fine to ignore my comments.
Post by Mark Struberg
I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it seems to me
that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1.
I thought about that as well!
Setting maxIdle to 1 will make it less likely but a deadlock will STILL happen.
I am not sure this is right. If maxIdle >0, the fix for POOL-240 (a similar liveness issue) should kick in and work. Each time a validation or passivation failure occurs on return, there is a call to ensureIdle that will create a new instance and add it to the pool if there is capacity to do so.
Post by Mark Struberg
So I fear we really need to tackle this. Stackoverflow and our own bug tracker is full of such reports :(
I see one additional actual report on GKOP (the other linked issue, which should be similarly patched if the consensus is to do this for GOP). The vast majority of the liveness reports that we have gotten over the years in DBCP and pool are just pool exhausted due to failure to return instances.
The workaround violating maxIdle will restore liveness, but is likely the wrong solution here. Again, up to you guys to judge. Note that when you specify maxIdle equal to 1
Crap. Meant 0 there.
you are telling the pool to destroy all returning instances. To use the pool in this way is silly, IMO. With your patch, new instances are still created for *every* borrow. The pool and all of its machinery is doing nothing other than tracking the number of active instances and making sure life cycle events are fired. If you want the semantics of returning object with threads waiting to be that the returning object is passivated, activated and handed directly to a waiter without every hitting the idle instance pool, that would require rewriting a fair bit of the borrow / return code. It is an interesting idea and would solve the POOL-240 as well.
One final comment. If you stick with something like what is in the code now, you should make sure to passivate the new instance before putting it into the pool. I just noticed that ensureIdle does not do that, which I think is a bug in that method. So if you want to proceed with this fix, I would recommend
1. Move the ensureIdle activations added in POOL-240 into destroy itself.
2. Add passivation to ensureIdle
3. Implement corresponding workaround for GKOP
Sorry, all. Looking again and thinking a little more, I think the best fix for this is actually to prevent the destroy on return in the first place if there are take waiters. The maxIdle invariant gets violated with the ensureIdle or direct create() fix anyway and just allowing the returning instance to go into the pool avoids the needless destroy / create sequence. A simple way to do this is just to recode maxIdle before the destroy test in returnObject.
Instead of
final int maxIdleSave = getMaxIdle()
// If maxIdle is set to 0 and there are take waiters, bump it to 1
// to preserve liveness.
final int maxIdleSave = idleObjects.hasTakeWaiters() ? Math.max(1,getMaxIdle()) : getMaxIdle();
Phil
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
should read: This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool) was needed to prevent a dead-lock....
*grabbing a fresh coffee* le
I am sorry I did not look carefully enough at this issue before reviewing the change. After reviewing the DBCP ticket (OP likely unrelated, IMO), I think that the right answer here is WONT_FIX. That sounds harsh, but it seems to me that the obvious solution here is for the user to set maxIdle to at least 1. What the fix does is effectively that, without changing the setting. If waiting threads die or time out while the create is happening, there will be an idle instance in the pool and for certain one is being put there on the way to getting checked back out. See comments on POOL-327.
If the consensus is to insert this workaround to enable the pool to retain liveness in the use case, it's probably best to use ensureIdle(1, false) (see POOL-240). It could be that just moving the call to ensureIdle inside destroy would be OK. But as stated above, this breaks the maxIdle contract.
I see that your original report / use case here is from DBCP, Mark. Was it prepared statements or connections that you were trying to limit to 0 idle? Is there a reason that just using 1 would not work?
Phil
Post by Mark Struberg
This change (putting a new item back to the idle pool was needed to prevent a dead-pool
---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org

Gary Gregory
2018-11-19 14:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, I now see what you mean.
We actually have 3 source zips now.
.src.zip
.source-release.zip
src.jar
That's a mess.
* source-release.zip is the official ASF packages whole build sources.
This includes the pom, build structure etc.
* src.jar is the sources which are automatically downloaded by the IDEs
for debugging purpose.
Nope, it's the "-sources" jar that is used in IDEs. The "-src" jar is what
_should_ contain all sources needed to build the jar and site.

"source-release" is not something we've used here before IIRC.

Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
We have both of them because commons-pool2 is a single-module project.
And yes, we need both of them. What we do not need is the src.zip. I have
no clue yet where this comes from but it shouldn't be here.
By leveraging native GIT we now can simply a.) drop the maven stating repo
in repository.a.o and b.) drop the release branch and tag from my github
account and re-roll the release without any weird RC hacks.
Will do that,
* fix the maven setup
* happy to also include the new ticket
* re-roll the release this afternoon.
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
écrit
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 8:59 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
That's the problem with inventing a new release process... why do we
have
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
AND
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-source-release.zip
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
And more importantly why are they _different_? Which one will be used in
the dist/release area?
Looks like pool didnt do its homework and kept the old assembly (src),
source-release comes from the parent and is likely the one to keep IMHO
Gary
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_
is
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the
according
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with
GIT
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the
board
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Romain Manni-Bucau
2018-11-19 15:09:58 UTC
Permalink
AFAIK source-release is quite standard @asf so likely saner to use that
from now on IMHO.
Agree sources is needed but Think Mark's point was more about assemblies
than default release artifacts.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, I now see what you mean.
We actually have 3 source zips now.
.src.zip
.source-release.zip
src.jar
That's a mess.
* source-release.zip is the official ASF packages whole build sources.
This includes the pom, build structure etc.
* src.jar is the sources which are automatically downloaded by the IDEs
for debugging purpose.
Nope, it's the "-sources" jar that is used in IDEs. The "-src" jar is what
_should_ contain all sources needed to build the jar and site.
"source-release" is not something we've used here before IIRC.
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
We have both of them because commons-pool2 is a single-module project.
And yes, we need both of them. What we do not need is the src.zip. I have
no clue yet where this comes from but it shouldn't be here.
By leveraging native GIT we now can simply a.) drop the maven stating
repo
Post by Mark Struberg
in repository.a.o and b.) drop the release branch and tag from my github
account and re-roll the release without any weird RC hacks.
Will do that,
* fix the maven setup
* happy to also include the new ticket
* re-roll the release this afternoon.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 16.11.2018 um 23:10 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 2:32 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <
écrit
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 8:59 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
That's the problem with inventing a new release process... why do we
have
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Post by Mark Struberg
AND
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/commons-pool2-2.6.1-source-release.zip
Post by Mark Struberg
And more importantly why are they _different_? Which one will be used
in
Post by Mark Struberg
the dist/release area?
Looks like pool didnt do its homework and kept the old assembly (src),
source-release comes from the parent and is likely the one to keep IMHO
Gary
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something
_important_
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
is
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the
according
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar
with
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
GIT
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the
board
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the
very
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Gregory
2018-11-17 00:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Gary Gregory
$ sha512sum commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
2b95b00a22bf72a7cdf77f2e40796d126b4a0d7b669564b8b04cd0c884252acd3dac356fe55a9fdaadd4767e13eef560995989cb2d39f862f8d3b7e1d06c773e
Post by Gary Gregory
*commons-pool2-2.6.1-src.zip
Which is not what you list above. Please advise.
Src vs source-release?
Yes, the hash matches source-release, thank you!

Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
<
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1c910171
Post by Mark Struberg
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_
is
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 10:13 schrieb Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE
succeeds.
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with
GIT
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the board
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very
first
Post by Mark Struberg
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Am 14.11.2018 um 09:17 schrieb Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Tompkins
2018-11-17 14:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Pardon my being a little late to the party here.

Thoughts in going through release validation (might be a tad redundant):
- We’re not much used to the maven assemblies being deployed to nexus, but that isn’t necessarily a problem.
- Why do we have a "-source-release” and a “-src” artifact?
- Do you plan to put the artifacts in the dist.apache.org area when you’re ready to promote?
- There don’t seem to be any build errors with the release.

Given this is considerably different than our standard release paradigm, what is your plan on ensuring that the commons site looks like it does today (with the new release candidate present)? It seems clear that you didn’t follow the directions laid out at https://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html, how are we to be sure you will follow the directions at https://commons.apache.org/releases/release.html? That said, the RC itself seems to be valid.

Do we want to cancel to include Gary’s https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-359 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-359> in 2.6.1?

I don’t think that have a solid vote until the questions above get answered. But, if we can ensure that the site will look proper and all of the requisite artifacts are in their requisite locations, I don’t see any reason to block this release.

Let me know what your thoughts are.

Cheers,
-Rob
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is 17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is 982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_ is missing!)
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according changes to my ASF-linked github repo
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with GIT screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the board level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very first GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on cryptographically strong steps.
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is 17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is 982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Gregory
2018-11-17 16:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Site build fails because we refer to

https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/production/commons/content/proper/pool

instead of
https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/websites/production/commons/content/proper/commons-pool

Gary
Post by Rob Tompkins
Pardon my being a little late to the party here.
- We’re not much used to the maven assemblies being deployed to
nexus, but that isn’t necessarily a problem.
- Why do we have a "-source-release” and a “-src” artifact?
- Do you plan to put the artifacts in the dist.apache.org area
when you’re ready to promote?
- There don’t seem to be any build errors with the release.
Given this is considerably different than our standard release paradigm,
what is your plan on ensuring that the commons site looks like it does
today (with the new release candidate present)? It seems clear that you
didn’t follow the directions laid out at
https://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html, how are we to be sure
you will follow the directions at
https://commons.apache.org/releases/release.html? That said, the RC
itself seems to be valid.
Do we want to cancel to include Gary’s
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-359 <
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-359> in 2.6.1?
I don’t think that have a solid vote until the questions above get
answered. But, if we can ensure that the site will look proper and all of
the requisite artifacts are in their requisite locations, I don’t see any
reason to block this release.
Let me know what your thoughts are.
Cheers,
-Rob
Post by Mark Struberg
Oki, now the full VOTE text!
I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache Commons pool2 2.6.1
The release was run with JDK-1.7 to ensure Java7 compatibility.
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
Post by Mark Struberg
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Site will be updated once the release has passed.
[+1] go ship it!
[+0] meh, I don't care
[-1] stop there is a ${showstopper} (that means something _important_ is
missing!)
Post by Mark Struberg
Here is my own +1
* signature
* hashes
* LICENSE
* NOTICE
* rat
* builds fine with various JDKs
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
PS: I've created the release in a GIT manner and pushed the according
changes to my ASF-linked github repo
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/release_branch_2.6.1
the sha1 of the commit is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/commit/c910171d9d8c8f5f895b7d18381fc03a51b2a019
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
the tag is
https://github.com/struberg/commons-pool/tree/commons-pool2-2.6.1
c910171
This will get pushed to the ASF cannonical repo once the VOTE succeeds.
Yay, this is the way GIT works and before someone not familiar with GIT
screams that this is not hosted on ASF: This got discussed on the board
level a long time ago (when we did DeltaSpike and CouchDB as the very first
GIT repos at the ASF) and is perfectly fine as all this is based on
cryptographically strong steps.
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
LieGrue,
strub
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official
VOTE.
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Gregory
2018-11-16 21:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Should we cancel this RC to include:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-359

?

Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Gregory
2018-11-22 16:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Gregory
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-359
This is now in git master.

Feel free to roll RC3.

Gary
Post by Gary Gregory
?
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Tompkins
2018-11-22 17:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-359
This is now in git master.
Feel free to roll RC3.
Who’s on for this one? Is it me or Mark?

-Rob
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Post by Gary Gregory
?
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Gary Gregory
2018-11-22 18:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-359
This is now in git master.
Feel free to roll RC3.
Who’s on for this one? Is it me or Mark?
If you have the time, go for it :-)

Can you make sure that Commons DBCP git master builds and tests OK with
Commons Pool 2.6.1-SNAPSHOT as part of the release?

Thank you!
Gary
-Rob
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Post by Gary Gregory
?
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Tompkins
2018-11-22 19:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Yeah. I can try to start pulling that together between now and tomorrow sort of time frame.
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-359
This is now in git master.
Feel free to roll RC3.
Who’s on for this one? Is it me or Mark?
If you have the time, go for it :-)
Can you make sure that Commons DBCP git master builds and tests OK with
Commons Pool 2.6.1-SNAPSHOT as part of the release?
Thank you!
Gary
Post by Rob Tompkins
-Rob
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Post by Gary Gregory
?
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Gary Gregory
2018-11-22 20:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Tompkins
Yeah. I can try to start pulling that together between now and tomorrow sort of time frame.
Enjoy the turkey!

Gary
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-359
This is now in git master.
Feel free to roll RC3.
Who’s on for this one? Is it me or Mark?
If you have the time, go for it :-)
Can you make sure that Commons DBCP git master builds and tests OK with
Commons Pool 2.6.1-SNAPSHOT as part of the release?
Thank you!
Gary
-Rob
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Post by Gary Gregory
?
Gary
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:17 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Tompkins
2018-11-22 23:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Yeah. I can try to start pulling that together between now and tomorrow
sort of time frame.
Enjoy the turkey!
Thanks. You too.
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-359
This is now in git master.
Feel free to roll RC3.
Who’s on for this one? Is it me or Mark?
If you have the time, go for it :-)
Can you make sure that Commons DBCP git master builds and tests OK with
Commons Pool 2.6.1-SNAPSHOT as part of the release?
Thank you!
Gary
Post by Rob Tompkins
-Rob
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Post by Gary Gregory
?
Gary
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:17 AM Mark Struberg
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an
official
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Rob Tompkins
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
Rob Tompkins
2018-11-23 14:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-359
This is now in git master.
Feel free to roll RC3.
Who’s on for this one? Is it me or Mark?
If you have the time, go for it :-)
Can you make sure that Commons DBCP git master builds and tests OK with
Commons Pool 2.6.1-SNAPSHOT as part of the release?
Thanks for making that validation easy for me
.so far so good on:

mvn -version
Apache Maven 3.5.4 (1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe; 2018-06-17T14:33:14-04:00)
Maven home: /usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.4/libexec
Java version: 1.8.0_191, vendor: Oracle Corporation, runtime: /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_191.jdk/Contents/Home/jre
Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: UTF-8
OS name: "mac os x", version: "10.14.1", arch: "x86_64", family: "mac"
Post by Gary Gregory
Thank you!
Gary
-Rob
Post by Gary Gregory
Gary
Post by Gary Gregory
?
Gary
Post by Mark Struberg
Hi folks!
I'm currently preparing the release for commons-pool2-2.6.1
So far I did
* fix the missing parts in changes.xml
* generate + copy the RELEASE_NOTES
* run the maven release (after fixing the setup...)
The ASF staging repository is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The source zip is at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1396/org/apache/commons/commons-pool2/2.6.1/
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
The sha1 of the source-release zip is
17b01d1e776b7e2b9987b665e1b4e456c02ffa1c
The sha512 is
982275c963c09e11dd38a3b6621f2a67bab42b6744a1629ab97b7323208b31730b756a7d5bc6dabee54ba0e9f72c8296904f36919fd421fee8e59786c587c388
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Gary Gregory
Post by Mark Struberg
I added my KEY (struberg at apache.org) to our dist KEYS file
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/KEYS
I will now continue with the follow up steps and then call an official VOTE.
Please let me know if something went wrong so far!
LieGrue,
strub
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Loading...