You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pivot.apache.org by Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> on 2013/05/29 01:14:58 UTC
[VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Hi All,
the Pivot 2.0.3 release candidate has been tagged, packaged, and is ready
for a vote.
The artifacts, RAT reports, and KEYS file can be found here:
http://people.apache.org/~smartini/pivot-2.0.3_release/
Note that just for convenience there are even Maven bundles for installing
them in a real Maven Repository:
http://people.apache.org/~smartini/pivot-2.0.3_maven/
The tag from which the release artifacts were generated can be found here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pivot/tags/2.0.3/
In addition, my PGP public code signing key can be found at the MIT key
server (http://pgp.mit.edu/), but just for convenience that key is even
here:
http://people.apache.org/~smartini/F9EDAF10.asc , and
smartini_apache.asc is only a copy of it with a better name.
Please vote to publish this release by Tuesday , June 04 at 23:00 GMT.
Note that voting may conclude early if people have the time to look earlier
(but in any case, minimum 72 hours).
Remember that the Apache Voting Process requires a minimum of 3 Bindings +1
vote for the release to be successful (see the "Votes on Package Release"
paragraph).
In your vote, please include the testing you performed to arrive at your
vote.
[ ] +1 Publish
[ ] +0
[ ] -0
[ ] -1 Don't publish
Thanks,
Sandro
Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Chris,
thank you for the help and patience :-) ... making a release is really a
time consuming task, so we can do it soon for 2.0.4 .
This time I'm sure we'll be able to publish the release ... now (after
Roger vote) it's our vote to be needed :-) .
Let's update soon.
Bye
Il giorno 23/lug/2013 18:06, "Chris Bartlett" <cb...@gmail.com> ha
scritto:
> Sandro,
>
> I totally agree about voting on the same 2.0.3 artifacts. There is no
> reason for you to rebuild everything and other voters to re-test just
> because of the Ant or git issues.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 23 July 2013 16:43, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > now I'll restart another time the vote for 2.0.3 .
> >
> > Note that the issue for building Pivot sources with Ant-1.9.x has been
> > resolved in sources (and already committed) BUT the vote will be done on
> > the same artifacts of last vote (generating a release is really a time
> > consuming job), so please don't report errors if you try to build with
> > 1.9.x (it will be possible since 2.0.4).
> >
> > On the small issue with sources downloaded from Git (unnecessary for the
> > vote, because release artifacts has to be tested), the same (I still have
> > to commit some good .gitignore files in test folders, I'll do asap).
> >
> >
> > Bye,
> > Sandro
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/7/20 Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > > welcome back.
> > > In next days I'll restart another vote, but for usual 2.0.3 artifacts
> ...
> > >
> > > For small issues you find we can resolve them for 2.0.4 and 2.1.0 ...
> and
> > > for missing test folders when downloading via git I can fix it (it's a
> > good
> > > thing to fix) but remember that ant test should be done on release
> > sources.
> > >
> > > Let's update soon.
> > >
> > > Bye,
> > > Sandro
> > > Il giorno 19/lug/2013 21:34, "Chris Bartlett" <cb...@gmail.com>
> > ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > > I realise that the last vote did not succeed due to insufficient
> binding
> > >> votes and in particular because I was unable to complete my tests due
> to
> > >> other commitments, so apologies again for that. However I have now
> > >> finally
> > >> found the time to complete testing the 2.0.3 release candidate and am
> > >> prepared to vote '+1 Publish' if another vote is called.
> > >>
> > >> - Download artefacts from
> > >> http://people.apache.org/~smartini/pivot-2.0.3_release/
> > >> - Verify MD5 & SHA checksums
> > >> - Verify PGP signing
> > >> - Review RAT files
> > >> - Review LICENSE, NOTICE, README & RELEASE-NOTES files
> > >> - Verify uncompressed content of corresponding 'zip' and 'tar.gz'
> > archives
> > >> are identical
> > >> - Ensure downloaded apache-pivot-2.0.3-src.zip matches checked out
> > source
> > >> tagged as 2.0.3
> > >>
> > >> (Build env : Ubuntu 13.04 x64, Oracle JDK 1.7.0_25-b15 x64, Ant 1.8.2,
> > >> JUnit 4.10)
> > >> - Run ant clean test
> > >> - Ensure no tests fail
> > >> - Run ant clean install
> > >> - Browse generated Javadoc in ./install/apache-pivot-2.0.3/doc
> > >> - Deploy WAR files from ./install/apache-pivot-2.0.3/webapps to
> Tomcat
> > >> v7.0.40
> > >> - Test various applet & web start links
> > >> - Win 7 x64, Chrome 28.0.1500.72 m, Oracle JRE 1.7.0_25_b16 x86
> > >> - Ubuntu 13.04 x64, Firefox 22 & Opera 12.16, Oracle JDK
> > 1.7.0_25-b15
> > >> x64
> > >> - Check Kitchen Sink applet displays 'Pivot-2.0.3_00' as version in
> > the
> > >> 'Info' Rollup
> > >> - Check other Ant targets
> > >>
> > >> I noticed a couple of small issues along the way, both of which have
> > >> simple
> > >> fixes
> > >> 1) Ant 1.9.x is rejected as the overly simple version check in
> build.xml
> > >> only looks for a 1.7 or 1.8 version prefix
> > >> 2) 'ant test' fails when source is taken from a git repo as git does
> not
> > >> store empty directories and a number of the <project>/test directories
> > >> have
> > >> no content
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 7 June 2013 11:25, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The vote did NOT passes with 2 binding +1, 1 non-binding +1, and no
> 0.
> > >> >
> > >> > See here for more info:
> > >> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Thank you very much to all who participated in this vote !!
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > View this message in context:
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-pivot-developers.417237.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Pivot-2-0-3-Round-3-tp4025883p4025923.html
> > >> > Sent from the Apache Pivot - Developers mailing list archive at
> > >> Nabble.com.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Chris Bartlett <cb...@gmail.com>.
Sandro,
I totally agree about voting on the same 2.0.3 artifacts. There is no
reason for you to rebuild everything and other voters to re-test just
because of the Ant or git issues.
Chris
On 23 July 2013 16:43, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> now I'll restart another time the vote for 2.0.3 .
>
> Note that the issue for building Pivot sources with Ant-1.9.x has been
> resolved in sources (and already committed) BUT the vote will be done on
> the same artifacts of last vote (generating a release is really a time
> consuming job), so please don't report errors if you try to build with
> 1.9.x (it will be possible since 2.0.4).
>
> On the small issue with sources downloaded from Git (unnecessary for the
> vote, because release artifacts has to be tested), the same (I still have
> to commit some good .gitignore files in test folders, I'll do asap).
>
>
> Bye,
> Sandro
>
>
>
> 2013/7/20 Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>
>
> > Hi Chris,
> > welcome back.
> > In next days I'll restart another vote, but for usual 2.0.3 artifacts ...
> >
> > For small issues you find we can resolve them for 2.0.4 and 2.1.0 ... and
> > for missing test folders when downloading via git I can fix it (it's a
> good
> > thing to fix) but remember that ant test should be done on release
> sources.
> >
> > Let's update soon.
> >
> > Bye,
> > Sandro
> > Il giorno 19/lug/2013 21:34, "Chris Bartlett" <cb...@gmail.com>
> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > I realise that the last vote did not succeed due to insufficient binding
> >> votes and in particular because I was unable to complete my tests due to
> >> other commitments, so apologies again for that. However I have now
> >> finally
> >> found the time to complete testing the 2.0.3 release candidate and am
> >> prepared to vote '+1 Publish' if another vote is called.
> >>
> >> - Download artefacts from
> >> http://people.apache.org/~smartini/pivot-2.0.3_release/
> >> - Verify MD5 & SHA checksums
> >> - Verify PGP signing
> >> - Review RAT files
> >> - Review LICENSE, NOTICE, README & RELEASE-NOTES files
> >> - Verify uncompressed content of corresponding 'zip' and 'tar.gz'
> archives
> >> are identical
> >> - Ensure downloaded apache-pivot-2.0.3-src.zip matches checked out
> source
> >> tagged as 2.0.3
> >>
> >> (Build env : Ubuntu 13.04 x64, Oracle JDK 1.7.0_25-b15 x64, Ant 1.8.2,
> >> JUnit 4.10)
> >> - Run ant clean test
> >> - Ensure no tests fail
> >> - Run ant clean install
> >> - Browse generated Javadoc in ./install/apache-pivot-2.0.3/doc
> >> - Deploy WAR files from ./install/apache-pivot-2.0.3/webapps to Tomcat
> >> v7.0.40
> >> - Test various applet & web start links
> >> - Win 7 x64, Chrome 28.0.1500.72 m, Oracle JRE 1.7.0_25_b16 x86
> >> - Ubuntu 13.04 x64, Firefox 22 & Opera 12.16, Oracle JDK
> 1.7.0_25-b15
> >> x64
> >> - Check Kitchen Sink applet displays 'Pivot-2.0.3_00' as version in
> the
> >> 'Info' Rollup
> >> - Check other Ant targets
> >>
> >> I noticed a couple of small issues along the way, both of which have
> >> simple
> >> fixes
> >> 1) Ant 1.9.x is rejected as the overly simple version check in build.xml
> >> only looks for a 1.7 or 1.8 version prefix
> >> 2) 'ant test' fails when source is taken from a git repo as git does not
> >> store empty directories and a number of the <project>/test directories
> >> have
> >> no content
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7 June 2013 11:25, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The vote did NOT passes with 2 binding +1, 1 non-binding +1, and no 0.
> >> >
> >> > See here for more info:
> >> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thank you very much to all who participated in this vote !!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > View this message in context:
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-pivot-developers.417237.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Pivot-2-0-3-Round-3-tp4025883p4025923.html
> >> > Sent from the Apache Pivot - Developers mailing list archive at
> >> Nabble.com.
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
now I'll restart another time the vote for 2.0.3 .
Note that the issue for building Pivot sources with Ant-1.9.x has been
resolved in sources (and already committed) BUT the vote will be done on
the same artifacts of last vote (generating a release is really a time
consuming job), so please don't report errors if you try to build with
1.9.x (it will be possible since 2.0.4).
On the small issue with sources downloaded from Git (unnecessary for the
vote, because release artifacts has to be tested), the same (I still have
to commit some good .gitignore files in test folders, I'll do asap).
Bye,
Sandro
2013/7/20 Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>
> Hi Chris,
> welcome back.
> In next days I'll restart another vote, but for usual 2.0.3 artifacts ...
>
> For small issues you find we can resolve them for 2.0.4 and 2.1.0 ... and
> for missing test folders when downloading via git I can fix it (it's a good
> thing to fix) but remember that ant test should be done on release sources.
>
> Let's update soon.
>
> Bye,
> Sandro
> Il giorno 19/lug/2013 21:34, "Chris Bartlett" <cb...@gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
> I realise that the last vote did not succeed due to insufficient binding
>> votes and in particular because I was unable to complete my tests due to
>> other commitments, so apologies again for that. However I have now
>> finally
>> found the time to complete testing the 2.0.3 release candidate and am
>> prepared to vote '+1 Publish' if another vote is called.
>>
>> - Download artefacts from
>> http://people.apache.org/~smartini/pivot-2.0.3_release/
>> - Verify MD5 & SHA checksums
>> - Verify PGP signing
>> - Review RAT files
>> - Review LICENSE, NOTICE, README & RELEASE-NOTES files
>> - Verify uncompressed content of corresponding 'zip' and 'tar.gz' archives
>> are identical
>> - Ensure downloaded apache-pivot-2.0.3-src.zip matches checked out source
>> tagged as 2.0.3
>>
>> (Build env : Ubuntu 13.04 x64, Oracle JDK 1.7.0_25-b15 x64, Ant 1.8.2,
>> JUnit 4.10)
>> - Run ant clean test
>> - Ensure no tests fail
>> - Run ant clean install
>> - Browse generated Javadoc in ./install/apache-pivot-2.0.3/doc
>> - Deploy WAR files from ./install/apache-pivot-2.0.3/webapps to Tomcat
>> v7.0.40
>> - Test various applet & web start links
>> - Win 7 x64, Chrome 28.0.1500.72 m, Oracle JRE 1.7.0_25_b16 x86
>> - Ubuntu 13.04 x64, Firefox 22 & Opera 12.16, Oracle JDK 1.7.0_25-b15
>> x64
>> - Check Kitchen Sink applet displays 'Pivot-2.0.3_00' as version in the
>> 'Info' Rollup
>> - Check other Ant targets
>>
>> I noticed a couple of small issues along the way, both of which have
>> simple
>> fixes
>> 1) Ant 1.9.x is rejected as the overly simple version check in build.xml
>> only looks for a 1.7 or 1.8 version prefix
>> 2) 'ant test' fails when source is taken from a git repo as git does not
>> store empty directories and a number of the <project>/test directories
>> have
>> no content
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 June 2013 11:25, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The vote did NOT passes with 2 binding +1, 1 non-binding +1, and no 0.
>> >
>> > See here for more info:
>> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you very much to all who participated in this vote !!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> >
>> http://apache-pivot-developers.417237.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Pivot-2-0-3-Round-3-tp4025883p4025923.html
>> > Sent from the Apache Pivot - Developers mailing list archive at
>> Nabble.com.
>> >
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Chris,
welcome back.
In next days I'll restart another vote, but for usual 2.0.3 artifacts ...
For small issues you find we can resolve them for 2.0.4 and 2.1.0 ... and
for missing test folders when downloading via git I can fix it (it's a good
thing to fix) but remember that ant test should be done on release sources.
Let's update soon.
Bye,
Sandro
Il giorno 19/lug/2013 21:34, "Chris Bartlett" <cb...@gmail.com> ha
scritto:
> I realise that the last vote did not succeed due to insufficient binding
> votes and in particular because I was unable to complete my tests due to
> other commitments, so apologies again for that. However I have now finally
> found the time to complete testing the 2.0.3 release candidate and am
> prepared to vote '+1 Publish' if another vote is called.
>
> - Download artefacts from
> http://people.apache.org/~smartini/pivot-2.0.3_release/
> - Verify MD5 & SHA checksums
> - Verify PGP signing
> - Review RAT files
> - Review LICENSE, NOTICE, README & RELEASE-NOTES files
> - Verify uncompressed content of corresponding 'zip' and 'tar.gz' archives
> are identical
> - Ensure downloaded apache-pivot-2.0.3-src.zip matches checked out source
> tagged as 2.0.3
>
> (Build env : Ubuntu 13.04 x64, Oracle JDK 1.7.0_25-b15 x64, Ant 1.8.2,
> JUnit 4.10)
> - Run ant clean test
> - Ensure no tests fail
> - Run ant clean install
> - Browse generated Javadoc in ./install/apache-pivot-2.0.3/doc
> - Deploy WAR files from ./install/apache-pivot-2.0.3/webapps to Tomcat
> v7.0.40
> - Test various applet & web start links
> - Win 7 x64, Chrome 28.0.1500.72 m, Oracle JRE 1.7.0_25_b16 x86
> - Ubuntu 13.04 x64, Firefox 22 & Opera 12.16, Oracle JDK 1.7.0_25-b15
> x64
> - Check Kitchen Sink applet displays 'Pivot-2.0.3_00' as version in the
> 'Info' Rollup
> - Check other Ant targets
>
> I noticed a couple of small issues along the way, both of which have simple
> fixes
> 1) Ant 1.9.x is rejected as the overly simple version check in build.xml
> only looks for a 1.7 or 1.8 version prefix
> 2) 'ant test' fails when source is taken from a git repo as git does not
> store empty directories and a number of the <project>/test directories have
> no content
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> On 7 June 2013 11:25, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The vote did NOT passes with 2 binding +1, 1 non-binding +1, and no 0.
> >
> > See here for more info:
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> >
> >
> > Thank you very much to all who participated in this vote !!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> http://apache-pivot-developers.417237.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Pivot-2-0-3-Round-3-tp4025883p4025923.html
> > Sent from the Apache Pivot - Developers mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Chris Bartlett <cb...@gmail.com>.
I realise that the last vote did not succeed due to insufficient binding
votes and in particular because I was unable to complete my tests due to
other commitments, so apologies again for that. However I have now finally
found the time to complete testing the 2.0.3 release candidate and am
prepared to vote '+1 Publish' if another vote is called.
- Download artefacts from
http://people.apache.org/~smartini/pivot-2.0.3_release/
- Verify MD5 & SHA checksums
- Verify PGP signing
- Review RAT files
- Review LICENSE, NOTICE, README & RELEASE-NOTES files
- Verify uncompressed content of corresponding 'zip' and 'tar.gz' archives
are identical
- Ensure downloaded apache-pivot-2.0.3-src.zip matches checked out source
tagged as 2.0.3
(Build env : Ubuntu 13.04 x64, Oracle JDK 1.7.0_25-b15 x64, Ant 1.8.2,
JUnit 4.10)
- Run ant clean test
- Ensure no tests fail
- Run ant clean install
- Browse generated Javadoc in ./install/apache-pivot-2.0.3/doc
- Deploy WAR files from ./install/apache-pivot-2.0.3/webapps to Tomcat
v7.0.40
- Test various applet & web start links
- Win 7 x64, Chrome 28.0.1500.72 m, Oracle JRE 1.7.0_25_b16 x86
- Ubuntu 13.04 x64, Firefox 22 & Opera 12.16, Oracle JDK 1.7.0_25-b15
x64
- Check Kitchen Sink applet displays 'Pivot-2.0.3_00' as version in the
'Info' Rollup
- Check other Ant targets
I noticed a couple of small issues along the way, both of which have simple
fixes
1) Ant 1.9.x is rejected as the overly simple version check in build.xml
only looks for a 1.7 or 1.8 version prefix
2) 'ant test' fails when source is taken from a git repo as git does not
store empty directories and a number of the <project>/test directories have
no content
Chris
On 7 June 2013 11:25, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The vote did NOT passes with 2 binding +1, 1 non-binding +1, and no 0.
>
> See here for more info:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>
>
> Thank you very much to all who participated in this vote !!
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-pivot-developers.417237.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Pivot-2-0-3-Round-3-tp4025883p4025923.html
> Sent from the Apache Pivot - Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
RE: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>.
The vote did NOT passes with 2 binding +1, 1 non-binding +1, and no 0.
See here for more info:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
Thank you very much to all who participated in this vote !!
--
View this message in context: http://apache-pivot-developers.417237.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Pivot-2-0-3-Round-3-tp4025883p4025923.html
Sent from the Apache Pivot - Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by "Roger L. Whitcomb" <Ro...@actian.com>.
Here is the relevant policy on releases (from
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what):
<quote>
The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All
releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make changes
to the software being released. In some cases, binary/bytecode packages
are also produced as a convenience to users that might not have the
appropriate tools to build a compiled version of the source. In all such
cases, the binary/bytecode package must have the same version number as
the source release and may only add binary/bytecode files that are the
result of compiling that version of the source code release.
</quote>
So, AFAIK, the only requirement for the binary file(s) is that the
version matches. Of course, we can do as much as we want to verify that
the binary files correspond to the sources...
~Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Bartlett [mailto:cbartlett.x@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:28 PM
To: Pivot Dev
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Roger,
Your reversed method was to be my final resort but I didn't think it
would really be acceptable as it is a bit of a hack. I certainly wasn't
aware of the source versus binary distinction. Do you have a link handy
for that?
If not I will have a trawl around later myself.
I was focusing on verifying that the supplied jars came from the correct
source commit because all of my other testing had been fine. That was
the last piece of the puzzle, but the one that I ran out of time on.
Chris
On 5 June 2013 22:17, Roger L. Whitcomb <Ro...@actian.com>
wrote:
> I did the compare in reverse: unzip the release archives and compare
> to SVN checkout (ignoring line-ending diffs). I very much doubt we
> can compare binary .jar files exactly because of timestamp differences
> regardless of line endings, though....
>
> If it helps, the Apache convention is that what we release is SOURCE,
> and the binary distributions are for convenience. So, the standard
> for comparison on the .class/.jar files and other binary artifacts
> does not have to be as stringent (IMO). Which is partly why I opted
> to check that the source files in the release artifacts compare (as
> exactly as
> possible) to what is in SVN, and then to compare the file lists of the
> .jar files with what I built from the source and do some basic sanity
> checks using the binary .jar files with my application.
>
> Don't know if that will help with getting confidence from your tests
> ....
>
> Noted, though, that the release build process is not very repeatable,
> and I hope to address this in the future.
>
> ~Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Bartlett [mailto:cbartlett.x@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:04 PM
> To: Pivot Dev
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
>
> On 5 June 2013 11:15, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think Sandro created the release on Linux, so likely the line
> > > endings were \n and not \r\n as they would be in Windows. Also
> > > the .jar files won't be exactly the same due to timestamps, and
> > > probably
>
> > > subtle JDK differences (such as exact minor release number, etc.).
> > > I used WinMerge on Windows with settings to ignore line-ending
> > > diffs
>
> > > and "diff -r" on OSX to do my comparisons, which seems to verify
> > > that the line endings in
> > the sources files are \n only.
> > Yes, out Release are always generated from Linux machines (or Mac
> > OSX by Todd, many time ago), related scripts are Unix shell scripts
> > since the beginning ... I'd like to update them to something more
> > portable (for example Gradle ...) but didn't have enough time up to
> > now, and I'm not sure it worth the effort.
> >
>
> The problem with the current build process is that it is not easy to
> recreate the release artifacts from source in a platform independent
> way (unless I am missing something obvious). Ideally it should be
> possible to checkout the correct tag/commit and run the relevant Ant
> command to generate identical release artifacts regardless of the OS,
> JDK version, locale etc. A binary comparison would confirm that the
> proposed release artifacts came from the correct source code with no
> modifications along the way.
>
> I'm not sure how to proceed with this vote without setting up an
> equivalent build environment to perform that kind of test. It might
> be something as simple as tweaking an existing SVN or git installation
> to force unix line endings on checkout or may involve a linux build
VM.
> Due to other commitments, I doubt I would even be able to attempt any
> of that until the weekend.
>
> I looked into the Ant FixCRLF task (
> http://ant.apache.org/manual/Tasks/fixcrlf.html) which might be able
> to help sometime in the future but couldn't quickly get a working
> configuration to process the source to match the proposed release
> source.
> There seemed to be too many variations in line endings, encodings &
> EOFs to quickly tweak.
>
>
> Roger - Yes, I had figured as much. I couldn't work out how to get
> BeyondCompare to ignore line endings in its folder search mode but it
> is useful to know about WinMerge. I think the compiler flags being
> set to target 1.6 will ensure that classes are the same regardless of
> the JDK version.
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Chris Bartlett <cb...@gmail.com>.
Roger,
Your reversed method was to be my final resort but I didn't think it would
really be acceptable as it is a bit of a hack. I certainly wasn't aware of
the source versus binary distinction. Do you have a link handy for that?
If not I will have a trawl around later myself.
I was focusing on verifying that the supplied jars came from the correct
source commit because all of my other testing had been fine. That was
the last piece of the puzzle, but the one that I ran out of time on.
Chris
On 5 June 2013 22:17, Roger L. Whitcomb <Ro...@actian.com> wrote:
> I did the compare in reverse: unzip the release archives and compare to
> SVN checkout (ignoring line-ending diffs). I very much doubt we can
> compare binary .jar files exactly because of timestamp differences
> regardless of line endings, though....
>
> If it helps, the Apache convention is that what we release is SOURCE,
> and the binary distributions are for convenience. So, the standard for
> comparison on the .class/.jar files and other binary artifacts does not
> have to be as stringent (IMO). Which is partly why I opted to check
> that the source files in the release artifacts compare (as exactly as
> possible) to what is in SVN, and then to compare the file lists of the
> .jar files with what I built from the source and do some basic sanity
> checks using the binary .jar files with my application.
>
> Don't know if that will help with getting confidence from your tests
> ....
>
> Noted, though, that the release build process is not very repeatable,
> and I hope to address this in the future.
>
> ~Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Bartlett [mailto:cbartlett.x@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:04 PM
> To: Pivot Dev
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
>
> On 5 June 2013 11:15, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think Sandro created the release on Linux, so likely the line
> > > endings were \n and not \r\n as they would be in Windows. Also the
> > > .jar files won't be exactly the same due to timestamps, and probably
>
> > > subtle JDK differences (such as exact minor release number, etc.).
> > > I used WinMerge on Windows with settings to ignore line-ending diffs
>
> > > and "diff -r" on OSX to do my comparisons, which seems to verify
> > > that the line endings in
> > the sources files are \n only.
> > Yes, out Release are always generated from Linux machines (or Mac OSX
> > by Todd, many time ago), related scripts are Unix shell scripts since
> > the beginning ... I'd like to update them to something more portable
> > (for example Gradle ...) but didn't have enough time up to now, and
> > I'm not sure it worth the effort.
> >
>
> The problem with the current build process is that it is not easy to
> recreate the release artifacts from source in a platform independent way
> (unless I am missing something obvious). Ideally it should be possible
> to checkout the correct tag/commit and run the relevant Ant command to
> generate identical release artifacts regardless of the OS, JDK version,
> locale etc. A binary comparison would confirm that the proposed release
> artifacts came from the correct source code with no modifications along
> the way.
>
> I'm not sure how to proceed with this vote without setting up an
> equivalent build environment to perform that kind of test. It might be
> something as simple as tweaking an existing SVN or git installation to
> force unix line endings on checkout or may involve a linux build VM.
> Due to other commitments, I doubt I would even be able to attempt any of
> that until the weekend.
>
> I looked into the Ant FixCRLF task (
> http://ant.apache.org/manual/Tasks/fixcrlf.html) which might be able to
> help sometime in the future but couldn't quickly get a working
> configuration to process the source to match the proposed release
> source.
> There seemed to be too many variations in line endings, encodings &
> EOFs to quickly tweak.
>
>
> Roger - Yes, I had figured as much. I couldn't work out how to get
> BeyondCompare to ignore line endings in its folder search mode but it is
> useful to know about WinMerge. I think the compiler flags being set to
> target 1.6 will ensure that classes are the same regardless of the JDK
> version.
>
RE: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by "Roger L. Whitcomb" <Ro...@actian.com>.
I did the compare in reverse: unzip the release archives and compare to
SVN checkout (ignoring line-ending diffs). I very much doubt we can
compare binary .jar files exactly because of timestamp differences
regardless of line endings, though....
If it helps, the Apache convention is that what we release is SOURCE,
and the binary distributions are for convenience. So, the standard for
comparison on the .class/.jar files and other binary artifacts does not
have to be as stringent (IMO). Which is partly why I opted to check
that the source files in the release artifacts compare (as exactly as
possible) to what is in SVN, and then to compare the file lists of the
.jar files with what I built from the source and do some basic sanity
checks using the binary .jar files with my application.
Don't know if that will help with getting confidence from your tests
....
Noted, though, that the release build process is not very repeatable,
and I hope to address this in the future.
~Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Bartlett [mailto:cbartlett.x@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 2:04 PM
To: Pivot Dev
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
On 5 June 2013 11:15, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think Sandro created the release on Linux, so likely the line
> > endings were \n and not \r\n as they would be in Windows. Also the
> > .jar files won't be exactly the same due to timestamps, and probably
> > subtle JDK differences (such as exact minor release number, etc.).
> > I used WinMerge on Windows with settings to ignore line-ending diffs
> > and "diff -r" on OSX to do my comparisons, which seems to verify
> > that the line endings in
> the sources files are \n only.
> Yes, out Release are always generated from Linux machines (or Mac OSX
> by Todd, many time ago), related scripts are Unix shell scripts since
> the beginning ... I'd like to update them to something more portable
> (for example Gradle ...) but didn't have enough time up to now, and
> I'm not sure it worth the effort.
>
The problem with the current build process is that it is not easy to
recreate the release artifacts from source in a platform independent way
(unless I am missing something obvious). Ideally it should be possible
to checkout the correct tag/commit and run the relevant Ant command to
generate identical release artifacts regardless of the OS, JDK version,
locale etc. A binary comparison would confirm that the proposed release
artifacts came from the correct source code with no modifications along
the way.
I'm not sure how to proceed with this vote without setting up an
equivalent build environment to perform that kind of test. It might be
something as simple as tweaking an existing SVN or git installation to
force unix line endings on checkout or may involve a linux build VM.
Due to other commitments, I doubt I would even be able to attempt any of
that until the weekend.
I looked into the Ant FixCRLF task (
http://ant.apache.org/manual/Tasks/fixcrlf.html) which might be able to
help sometime in the future but couldn't quickly get a working
configuration to process the source to match the proposed release
source.
There seemed to be too many variations in line endings, encodings &
EOFs to quickly tweak.
Roger - Yes, I had figured as much. I couldn't work out how to get
BeyondCompare to ignore line endings in its folder search mode but it is
useful to know about WinMerge. I think the compiler flags being set to
target 1.6 will ensure that classes are the same regardless of the JDK
version.
Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>.
Roger,
I agree with you, comparing binary artifacts is not so useful because of
course it depends on platform, tools, compression, etc. So on binary I
could suggest to check features by running/using them, open like zip files
and inspect content, etc ... but of course one of powerful things of open
source is that anyone is able to look at software from many point of view,
a great approach to make it rock solid.
Chris, note that the problems you have with different line encodings in
Win/Linux are not real problems:
our build process in really multi-platform (releases are generated in
Linux, but only because some steps need pgp signing, svn tagging, and other
small things, but all NOT related to build of sources , because all other
steps launch our usual Ant tasks).
Anyway I think that a better flow would be to discuss some details in
another mail thread (to avoid confusion in vote mail thread) and write here
a vote with some info for it. But I don't think it's important now ...
Thank you the same for your work here to try to ensure best quality on
release artifacts.
Just after the expiration of the vote I'll post final results.
And don't worry, we can repeat the vote later ...
Bye,
Sandro
On 5 June 2013 11:15, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think Sandro created the release on Linux, so likely the line endings
> > were \n and not \r\n as they would be in Windows. Also the .jar files
> > won't be exactly the same due to timestamps, and probably subtle JDK
> > differences (such as exact minor release number, etc.). I used WinMerge
> > on Windows with settings to ignore line-ending diffs and "diff -r" on
OSX
> > to do my comparisons, which seems to verify that the line endings in
> the sources files are \n only.
> Yes, out Release are always generated from Linux machines (or Mac OSX by
> Todd, many time ago), related scripts are Unix shell scripts since the
> beginning ... I'd like to update them to something more portable (for
> example Gradle ...) but didn't have enough time up to now, and I'm not
sure
> it worth the effort.
>
The problem with the current build process is that it is not easy to
recreate the release artifacts from source in a platform independent way
(unless I am missing something obvious). Ideally it should be possible to
checkout the correct tag/commit and run the relevant Ant command to
generate identical release artifacts regardless of the OS, JDK version,
locale etc. A binary comparison would confirm that the proposed release
artifacts came from the correct source code with no modifications along the
way.
I'm not sure how to proceed with this vote without setting up an equivalent
build environment to perform that kind of test. It might be something as
simple as tweaking an existing SVN or git installation to force unix line
endings on checkout or may involve a linux build VM. Due to other
commitments, I doubt I would even be able to attempt any of that until the
weekend.
I looked into the Ant FixCRLF task (
http://ant.apache.org/manual/Tasks/fixcrlf.html) which might be able to
help sometime in the future but couldn't quickly get a working
configuration to process the source to match the proposed release source.
There seemed to be too many variations in line endings, encodings & EOFs
to quickly tweak.
Roger - Yes, I had figured as much. I couldn't work out how to get
BeyondCompare to ignore line endings in its folder search mode but it is
useful to know about WinMerge. I think the compiler flags being set to
target 1.6 will ensure that classes are the same regardless of the JDK
version.
Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Chris Bartlett <cb...@gmail.com>.
On 5 June 2013 11:15, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think Sandro created the release on Linux, so likely the line endings
> > were \n and not \r\n as they would be in Windows. Also the .jar files
> > won't be exactly the same due to timestamps, and probably subtle JDK
> > differences (such as exact minor release number, etc.). I used WinMerge
> > on Windows with settings to ignore line-ending diffs and "diff -r" on OSX
> > to do my comparisons, which seems to verify that the line endings in
> the sources files are \n only.
> Yes, out Release are always generated from Linux machines (or Mac OSX by
> Todd, many time ago), related scripts are Unix shell scripts since the
> beginning ... I'd like to update them to something more portable (for
> example Gradle ...) but didn't have enough time up to now, and I'm not sure
> it worth the effort.
>
The problem with the current build process is that it is not easy to
recreate the release artifacts from source in a platform independent way
(unless I am missing something obvious). Ideally it should be possible to
checkout the correct tag/commit and run the relevant Ant command to
generate identical release artifacts regardless of the OS, JDK version,
locale etc. A binary comparison would confirm that the proposed release
artifacts came from the correct source code with no modifications along the
way.
I'm not sure how to proceed with this vote without setting up an equivalent
build environment to perform that kind of test. It might be something as
simple as tweaking an existing SVN or git installation to force unix line
endings on checkout or may involve a linux build VM. Due to other
commitments, I doubt I would even be able to attempt any of that until the
weekend.
I looked into the Ant FixCRLF task (
http://ant.apache.org/manual/Tasks/fixcrlf.html) which might be able to
help sometime in the future but couldn't quickly get a working
configuration to process the source to match the proposed release source.
There seemed to be too many variations in line endings, encodings & EOFs
to quickly tweak.
Roger - Yes, I had figured as much. I couldn't work out how to get
BeyondCompare to ignore line endings in its folder search mode but it is
useful to know about WinMerge. I think the compiler flags being set to
target 1.6 will ensure that classes are the same regardless of the JDK
version.
RE: [VOTE extended] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>.
Up to now Vote results are 2 binding +1 from PMC Members, and 1 non binding
+1.
But, as requested by one of our PMC Members, to let him finish tests, the
vote is extended up to Thursday , June 06 at 23:00 GMT.
If (this extension should not be valid for ASF) please tell us me, so I can
close this and restart another vote.
Thanks,
Sandro
--
View this message in context: http://apache-pivot-developers.417237.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Pivot-2-0-3-Round-3-tp4025883p4025911.html
Sent from the Apache Pivot - Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi, didn't find info that it's not possible to extend a vote duration, so
unless objection I'll extend it the next email here (but with a little
different title, to have it more visible) ...
> I think Sandro created the release on Linux, so likely the line endings
> were \n and not \r\n as they would be in Windows. Also the .jar files
> won't be exactly the same due to timestamps, and probably subtle JDK
> differences (such as exact minor release number, etc.). I used WinMerge
> on Windows with settings to ignore line-ending diffs and "diff -r" on OSX
> to do my comparisons, which seems to verify that the line endings in
the sources files are \n only.
Yes, out Release are always generated from Linux machines (or Mac OSX by
Todd, many time ago), related scripts are Unix shell scripts since the
beginning ... I'd like to update them to something more portable (for
example Gradle ...) but didn't have enough time up to now, and I'm not sure
it worth the effort.
Bye,
Sandro
--
View this message in context: http://apache-pivot-developers.417237.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Pivot-2-0-3-Round-3-tp4025883p4025910.html
Sent from the Apache Pivot - Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
I have to check if we can extend the duration of the vote (and if possible
I'll write here today).
Let's update.
Sandro
Il giorno 05/giu/2013 00:25, "Roger L. Whitcomb" <Ro...@actian.com>
ha scritto:
> I think Sandro created the release on Linux, so likely the line endings
> were \n and not \r\n as they would be in Windows. Also the .jar files
> won't be exactly the same due to timestamps, and probably subtle JDK
> differences (such as exact minor release number, etc.). I used WinMerge
> on Windows with settings to ignore line-ending diffs and "diff -r" on
> OSX to do my comparisons, which seems to verify that the line endings in
> the sources files are \n only.
>
> Let's see what Sandro says. You are essentially (without saying so
> exactly) voting +0 on the release, awaiting further testing. So, I'm
> fine with extending the vote for another 24 hours in order to complete
> your testing.
>
> Thanks for your efforts so far,
> ~Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Bartlett [mailto:cbartlett.x@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:01 PM
> To: Pivot Dev
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
>
> Unfortunately I have not yet finished testing.
>
> When attempting to recreate the release candidate from SVN source and
> then compare the resulting files I am seeing discrepancies which *seem*
> to just be down to line endings however I have not yet confirmed this or
> had time to correct my environment (if that is where the difference
> originates from).
>
> What is the next step? Can we simply extend the vote by 24 hours or is
> a new vote required?
>
> Chris
>
> On 3 June 2013 22:34, Roger L. Whitcomb <Ro...@actian.com>
> wrote:
>
> > My vote is:
> >
> > [+1] Publish
> >
> > Tests done:
> > * System is OSX 10.6.8, JDK 1.6.0_45 (x86_64)
> > * Download all .zip and .tar.gz files, check MD5 checksums.
> > * Compare contents of .zip files with contents of .tar.gz files and
> > verified they are identical.
> > * Run "clean", "package", "doc", "test" targets on both source
> > directories.
> > * Tested .jar files built from source with our application.
> > * Tested binary .jar files with our application.
> > * Browsed Javadoc in all four locations (generated from source
> > directories and from shipped binary files).
> > * Browsed text RAT reports.
> > * Compared 2.0.3 tag with current branches/2.0.x code and found only
> > expected differences.
> > * Compare both source downloads with contents of tags/2.0.3 and
> > verified they are identical.
> >
> > Also ran a number of other tests on Windows of these same files for
> > previous vote and found no problems.
> >
> > ~Roger Whitcomb
> >
>
RE: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by "Roger L. Whitcomb" <Ro...@actian.com>.
I think Sandro created the release on Linux, so likely the line endings
were \n and not \r\n as they would be in Windows. Also the .jar files
won't be exactly the same due to timestamps, and probably subtle JDK
differences (such as exact minor release number, etc.). I used WinMerge
on Windows with settings to ignore line-ending diffs and "diff -r" on
OSX to do my comparisons, which seems to verify that the line endings in
the sources files are \n only.
Let's see what Sandro says. You are essentially (without saying so
exactly) voting +0 on the release, awaiting further testing. So, I'm
fine with extending the vote for another 24 hours in order to complete
your testing.
Thanks for your efforts so far,
~Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Bartlett [mailto:cbartlett.x@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:01 PM
To: Pivot Dev
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Unfortunately I have not yet finished testing.
When attempting to recreate the release candidate from SVN source and
then compare the resulting files I am seeing discrepancies which *seem*
to just be down to line endings however I have not yet confirmed this or
had time to correct my environment (if that is where the difference
originates from).
What is the next step? Can we simply extend the vote by 24 hours or is
a new vote required?
Chris
On 3 June 2013 22:34, Roger L. Whitcomb <Ro...@actian.com>
wrote:
> My vote is:
>
> [+1] Publish
>
> Tests done:
> * System is OSX 10.6.8, JDK 1.6.0_45 (x86_64)
> * Download all .zip and .tar.gz files, check MD5 checksums.
> * Compare contents of .zip files with contents of .tar.gz files and
> verified they are identical.
> * Run "clean", "package", "doc", "test" targets on both source
> directories.
> * Tested .jar files built from source with our application.
> * Tested binary .jar files with our application.
> * Browsed Javadoc in all four locations (generated from source
> directories and from shipped binary files).
> * Browsed text RAT reports.
> * Compared 2.0.3 tag with current branches/2.0.x code and found only
> expected differences.
> * Compare both source downloads with contents of tags/2.0.3 and
> verified they are identical.
>
> Also ran a number of other tests on Windows of these same files for
> previous vote and found no problems.
>
> ~Roger Whitcomb
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Chris Bartlett <cb...@gmail.com>.
Unfortunately I have not yet finished testing.
When attempting to recreate the release candidate from SVN source and then
compare the resulting files I am seeing discrepancies which *seem* to just
be down to line endings however I have not yet confirmed this or had time
to correct my environment (if that is where the difference originates from).
What is the next step? Can we simply extend the vote by 24 hours or is a
new vote required?
Chris
On 3 June 2013 22:34, Roger L. Whitcomb <Ro...@actian.com> wrote:
> My vote is:
>
> [+1] Publish
>
> Tests done:
> * System is OSX 10.6.8, JDK 1.6.0_45 (x86_64)
> * Download all .zip and .tar.gz files, check MD5 checksums.
> * Compare contents of .zip files with contents of .tar.gz files and
> verified they are identical.
> * Run "clean", "package", "doc", "test" targets on both source
> directories.
> * Tested .jar files built from source with our application.
> * Tested binary .jar files with our application.
> * Browsed Javadoc in all four locations (generated from source
> directories and from shipped binary files).
> * Browsed text RAT reports.
> * Compared 2.0.3 tag with current branches/2.0.x code and found only
> expected differences.
> * Compare both source downloads with contents of tags/2.0.3 and verified
> they are identical.
>
> Also ran a number of other tests on Windows of these same files for
> previous vote and found no problems.
>
> ~Roger Whitcomb
>
RE: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by "Roger L. Whitcomb" <Ro...@actian.com>.
My vote is:
[+1] Publish
Tests done:
* System is OSX 10.6.8, JDK 1.6.0_45 (x86_64)
* Download all .zip and .tar.gz files, check MD5 checksums.
* Compare contents of .zip files with contents of .tar.gz files and
verified they are identical.
* Run "clean", "package", "doc", "test" targets on both source
directories.
* Tested .jar files built from source with our application.
* Tested binary .jar files with our application.
* Browsed Javadoc in all four locations (generated from source
directories and from shipped binary files).
* Browsed text RAT reports.
* Compared 2.0.3 tag with current branches/2.0.x code and found only
expected differences.
* Compare both source downloads with contents of tags/2.0.3 and verified
they are identical.
Also ran a number of other tests on Windows of these same files for
previous vote and found no problems.
~Roger Whitcomb
Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Lukáš Macháček <cg...@coolmail.cz>.
Hi All,
If I can vote than I'm for:
[x] +1 Publish
I'm using Pivot 2.0.3 from it's first release candidate each working day
with my desktop applications on Fedora Linux 18 and 19 with Oracle JDK 6
64bit and Open JDK 7 64bit and after fix of problem with ListButtons
everything works perfectly.
Thanks,
Lukas
Dne 2.6.2013 17:23, Sandro Martini napsal(a):
> Hi all,
> this is my vote:
>
>> [x] +1 Publish
> Test Platform: Windows 7
> Oracle JDK 6 Update 45 (64 bit), and Java Runtime 7 Update 21 (64 bit)
> inside Chrome 27 , Firefox 21 , Internet Explorer 9
>
> - review digital sign on all asc files, using PGP / GPG
> - review RAT reports
> - check correctness of the tag in subversion
>
>
> Tests on Binary:
>
> - check md5 on apache-pivot-2.0.3.zip
>
> - check that root files are good (README, LICENSE, BUILD, RELEASE-NOTES,
> etc)
> - open and inspect all pivot jars to ensure the content is right
> - open javadoc index, and tested some random pages
> - deploy demos and tutorials wars in a local tomcat 6.0.36 instance,
> and verify that:
> the two web applications are working,
> that all links are good (pages, applets, web start applications),
> and that all pages have the right content inside
>
>
> Tests on Sources:
>
> - check md5 on apache-pivot-2.0.3-src.zip
>
> - check that root files are good (README, LICENSE, BUILD, RELEASE-NOTES,
> etc)
> - build test environment: ant-1.8.4, junit-4.8.2, maven-3.0.4,
> maven-ant-tasks-2.1.3
> - execute the following ant commands with JDK 6 Update 38:
> clean, dist, clean, install, maven-install, and ensure that all works good
> - inspected generated artifacts (zip, jars)
> - inspected installed artifacts in a local maven repository
>
>
> Bye,
> Sandro
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
this is my vote:
> [x] +1 Publish
Test Platform: Windows 7
Oracle JDK 6 Update 45 (64 bit), and Java Runtime 7 Update 21 (64 bit)
inside Chrome 27 , Firefox 21 , Internet Explorer 9
- review digital sign on all asc files, using PGP / GPG
- review RAT reports
- check correctness of the tag in subversion
Tests on Binary:
- check md5 on apache-pivot-2.0.3.zip
- check that root files are good (README, LICENSE, BUILD, RELEASE-NOTES,
etc)
- open and inspect all pivot jars to ensure the content is right
- open javadoc index, and tested some random pages
- deploy demos and tutorials wars in a local tomcat 6.0.36 instance,
and verify that:
the two web applications are working,
that all links are good (pages, applets, web start applications),
and that all pages have the right content inside
Tests on Sources:
- check md5 on apache-pivot-2.0.3-src.zip
- check that root files are good (README, LICENSE, BUILD, RELEASE-NOTES,
etc)
- build test environment: ant-1.8.4, junit-4.8.2, maven-3.0.4,
maven-ant-tasks-2.1.3
- execute the following ant commands with JDK 6 Update 38:
clean, dist, clean, install, maven-install, and ensure that all works good
- inspected generated artifacts (zip, jars)
- inspected installed artifacts in a local maven repository
Bye,
Sandro
Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3
Posted by Chris Bartlett <cb...@gmail.com>.
Apologies for my long term absence from the lists & project in general.
I have a little more free time at the moment so will try to contribute to
this vote in the next few days.
Chris
On 29 May 2013 00:14, Sandro Martini <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> the Pivot 2.0.3 release candidate has been tagged, packaged, and is ready
> for a vote.
> The artifacts, RAT reports, and KEYS file can be found here:
> http://people.apache.org/~smartini/pivot-2.0.3_release/
>
> Note that just for convenience there are even Maven bundles for installing
> them in a real Maven Repository:
> http://people.apache.org/~smartini/pivot-2.0.3_maven/
>
>
> The tag from which the release artifacts were generated can be found here:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/pivot/tags/2.0.3/
>
> In addition, my PGP public code signing key can be found at the MIT key
> server (http://pgp.mit.edu/), but just for convenience that key is even
> here:
> http://people.apache.org/~smartini/F9EDAF10.asc , and
> smartini_apache.asc is only a copy of it with a better name.
>
> Please vote to publish this release by Tuesday , June 04 at 23:00 GMT.
> Note that voting may conclude early if people have the time to look earlier
> (but in any case, minimum 72 hours).
>
> Remember that the Apache Voting Process requires a minimum of 3 Bindings +1
> vote for the release to be successful (see the "Votes on Package Release"
> paragraph).
>
> In your vote, please include the testing you performed to arrive at your
> vote.
>
> [ ] +1 Publish
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -0
> [ ] -1 Don't publish
>
> Thanks,
> Sandro
>