[jdom-interest] Preparing JDOM 1.1.2 ?

Mon Sep 19 10:47:58 PDT 2011

Hi All.

The junit testing for JDOM2 is essentially complete in terms of regression
testing, and there have been a number of issues found as a result of this
testing.

I have gone through the issues and labeled those issues I think should be
fixed in 1.1.2 with a yellow 'backport 1.1.2'. I have also applied some of
the fixes already, and I have labeled those fixes with a green 'backport
1.1.2 done'.

Please inspect the lists at https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/issues
and drop a note if you think there are issues that are mislabeled... i.e.
you think there are unlabeled issues that should be backported, or labeled
issues you think should not be backported.

I am hoping to get this list somewhat finalized and then finish the
backport. At that point it would make sense to put out a 'beta' version of
jdom-1.1.2 using the new github code base, to ensure that there are no
unforseen build problems. People should be able to do a drop-in of the
1.1.2 beta with their current 1.1.1 jar.

We can put the maven repository to use for a 'snapshot' build, and can use
that infrastructure to manage the artifacts. It will also allow us to set
up the correct maven procedures. That way we can have all issues ironed out
when 1.1.2 is fully released.

Rolf

On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:22:01 -0400, Rolf <jdom at tuis.net> wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> I have set up the process/infrastructure for JDOM 1.1.2
> 
> I initially set up the github branches incorrectly. I used 'branch' 
> structures to indicate previous JDOM releases, when I should have used 
> plain tags. So, I have removed the branch called jdom-1.1.1 and instead 
> created a tag called jdom-1.1.1 (I also moved it from the revision it 
> was on to the actual revision used for jdom-1.1.1).
> 
> I have now created a branch jdom-1.x which will be used as the 
> development branch for future pre-JDOM2 development/fixes.
> 
> The process for the above changes can be read up on at: 
> https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/wiki/Source-Branches-and-JDOM2 
> (see the update near the bottom...).
> 
> I have gone through the issues (open and closed) in github and I have 
> 'labelled' those issues I believe are good for backporting to jdom-1.1.2
> 
> If any new issues arise, or if anyone thinks there are issues on that 
> list which should or should not be backported to 1.1.2 then please speak

> up. I intend to start working on the backport quite soon (it should be 
> really quick and easy). The bigger problem is that I have not yet 
> finished the junit testing, so there may be some more issues that arise.

> I expec that by the end of next week the junit testing will be 
> sufficient for JDOM2 work.
> 
> Rolf
> 
> On 30/08/2011 6:15 PM, Jason Hunter wrote:
>> On Aug 25, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Rolf Lear wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Jason, the way I understand it is that we are intending a 1.1.2
release.
>>> There are some issues in GitHub targeting that release.
>>>
>>> I think it is worth discussing some fixes for a JDOM 1.1.2 release.
>>>
>>> Currently the list of 1.1.2 Milestone issues is:
>>> #1 Namespace for default attributes from XMLSchema
>>> https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/issues/1
>>> #3 Should have a build in Maven Central
>>> https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/issues/3
>>>
>>>
>>> I am unsure of how much priority should be put on 1.1.2 items. On the
>>> one
>>> hand, I think that these issues are high priority, and should be
>>> addressed.
>>> On the other hand, I find it hard to figure out where to draw the
line.
>>
>> My general feeling is we should do a 1.1.2 with any bug fixes that are
>> low-risk, don't introduce any compatibility issues, and will be coded
up
>> soon.
>>
>>> Also, the Maven issue is probably quite disruptive in terms of code
>>> impact.... and, I feel it would be a lot of effort to 'mavenize' both
>>> 1.1.2
>>> and 2.0... I see that issue (#3) as being a 2.0 milestone, not 1.1.2
>>
>> Why the code impact?  I wasn't suggesting we use Maven, just put builds
>> out there so others who use Maven can fetch JDOM builds.  Looks like
>> others have been doing this for us up til now:
>>
>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/jdom/jdom
>>
>>> There are some other issues already filed which could be part of
1.1.2,
>>> but no-one has properly addressed. Things like
>>> https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/issues/9 - BaseURI not output.
>>>
>>> Also, what I am finding is that as I go through adding JUnit tests I
>>> have
>>> encountered a number of small issues. Each of them is trivial to fix
(so
>>> far, anyway), but, when taken together, there are enough to warrant a
>>> 1.1.2
>>> release. Further, I am sure that there will be even more as I cover
>>> more of
>>> the JDOM code. I have been itemizing these small issues in GitHub as I
>>> go
>>> so that I can 'document' what has changed, but the same items can be
>>> used
>>> to fix 1.1.2.
>>>
>>> I have been concentrating on the JDOM2 coverage, but, I think it would
>>> make sense to also get a 1.1.2 branch going, and clearing up some of
the
>>> 1.1.2 issues.
>>>
>>> That is, assuming we are planning a 1.1.2 release.... we are, aren't
we?
>>
>> It seems like a good idea, targeted to people who are conservative.
>>
>>>
>>> I have inspected the branch on GitHub labeled as JDOM-1.1.1. There is
>>> one
>>> difference between that branch, and the actual code released as 1.1.1,
>>> and
>>> that is commit
>>>
https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/commit/ea30b1e2b614f4b7d49de8a95af71fe3fb52ae2b
>>>
>>> It seems to me that I can move the 1.1.1 branch back up one commit,
and
>>> then branch the 1.1.2 from where the 1.1.1 was. it seems simple in my
>>> head,
>>> but I will have to research the best way to do it in my head.
>>
>> Cool.  Please when you're done add to the wiki how you did it, since
>> it'll help all us git-noobs learn.  BTW, I have git-guru friends if we
>> need to ask them.
>>
>>> Once we get a 1.1.2 branch going it should be easy for me to apply any
>>> fixes to both 2.0 and 1.1.2 (if we agree that they should be
>>> back-ported to
>>> 1.1.2).
>>>
>>> Anyway, the way I see it is that a 1.1.2 release should be 'planned' (
-
>>> or completely dismissed and just roll things in to 2.0.0).
>>
>> I feel like there would be demand for a 1.1.2 that's basically a
>> risk-free drop-in upgrade for people on 1.1.1 that includes some fixes.
>>
>> -jh-
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
> http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@yourhost.com