You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jena.apache.org by Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org> on 2014/10/02 19:10:16 UTC
[VOTE] Release Jena 2.12.1 and Fuseki 1.1.1 (RC 2)
Hi,
Here is a vote on a release of Jena 2.12.1 with Fuseki artifact
1.1.1
This is the second release candidate for this release. This updated
candidate addresses the following points:
- Missing/incorrect license headers in a couple of files
- Merges in several minor fixes that have landed in master in the meantime
Everyone, not just committers, is invited to test and vote.
(We do need at least 3 PMC +1's but the more it's tested, the better.)
Staging repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejena-1007/
Proposed dist/ area:
http://people.apache.org/~rvesse/jena-2.12.1-RC2/
Keys:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jena/dist/KEYS
Git commit (web browser URL):
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=jena.git;a=commit;h=050c298ada387
49a1ff166a77851b963991e4785
NB - Text wrapping may mangle the above URL
Git Commit Hash:
050c298ada38749a1ff166a77851b963991e4785
Git Commit Tag:
jena-2.12.1-rc2
Dependency Changes since previous release:
commons-csv - 1.0 - new
libthrift - 0.9.1 - new
Please vote to approve this release:
[ ] +1 Approve the release
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Don't release, because ...
This vote will be open to the end of
Tuesday, 7th October, 2014 23:59 UTC
(96 hours from the same hour tonight UTC).
Thanks,
Rob
Checking needed:
+ does everything work on Linux?
+ does everything work on MS Windows?
+ does everything work on OS X?
+ is the GPG signature fine?
+ are the checksums correct?
+ is there a source archive?
+ can the source archive really be built?
+ is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact
(both source and binary artifacts)?
+ does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions?
+ have any licenses of dependencies changed due to upgrades?
if so have LICENSE and NOTICE been upgraded appropriately?
+ does the tag in the SCM contain reproducible sources?
Re: [VOTE] Release Jena 2.12.1 and Fuseki 1.1.1 (RC 2)
Posted by Claude Warren <cl...@xenei.com>.
+1
Checked on Ubuntu
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> Rob
>
> ---
>
> Checking needed:
>
> + does everything work on Linux?
>
> Not tested
>
> + does everything work on MS Windows?
>
> Not tested
>
> + does everything work on OS X?
>
> Yes
>
> + is the GPG signature fine?
>
> Yes
>
> + are the checksums correct?
>
> Yes
>
> + is there a source archive?
>
> Yes
>
> + can the source archive really be built?
>
> Yes
>
> + is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact
> (both source and binary artifacts)?
>
> Yes
>
> + does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions?
>
> Yes
>
> + have any licenses of dependencies changed due to upgrades?
> if so have LICENSE and NOTICE been upgraded appropriately?
>
> Yes
>
> + does the tag in the SCM contain reproducible sources?
>
>
> Yes
>
> On 05/10/2014 12:09, "Andy Seaborne" <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> Please vote to approve this release:
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> >
> >+1
> >
> >> [ ] 0 Don't care
> >> [ ] -1 Don't release, because ...
> >
> >
> >Give the problems with building are identified as an issue with the
> >testing, not the main code, I am happy to release this build.
> >
> >>
> >> Checking needed:
> >>
> >> + does everything work on Linux?
> >
> >Only problems were the security tests.
> >
> >> + does everything work on MS Windows?
> >> + does everything work on OS X?
> >
> >> + is the GPG signature fine?
> >Yes
> >> + are the checksums correct?
> >Yes
> >> + is there a source archive?
> >Yes
> >> + can the source archive really be built?
> >Yes, it can be built.
> >
> >> + is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact
> >> (both source and binary artifacts)?
> >Yes
> >> + does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions?
> >Yes
> >> + have any licenses of dependencies changed due to upgrades?
> >> if so have LICENSE and NOTICE been upgraded appropriately?
> >Yes
> >> + does the tag in the SCM contain reproducible sources?
> >Yes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
<http://like-like.xenei.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
Re: [VOTE] Release Jena 2.12.1 and Fuseki 1.1.1 (RC 2)
Posted by Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org>.
+1
Rob
---
Checking needed:
+ does everything work on Linux?
Not tested
+ does everything work on MS Windows?
Not tested
+ does everything work on OS X?
Yes
+ is the GPG signature fine?
Yes
+ are the checksums correct?
Yes
+ is there a source archive?
Yes
+ can the source archive really be built?
Yes
+ is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact
(both source and binary artifacts)?
Yes
+ does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions?
Yes
+ have any licenses of dependencies changed due to upgrades?
if so have LICENSE and NOTICE been upgraded appropriately?
Yes
+ does the tag in the SCM contain reproducible sources?
Yes
On 05/10/2014 12:09, "Andy Seaborne" <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Please vote to approve this release:
>>
>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>
>+1
>
>> [ ] 0 Don't care
>> [ ] -1 Don't release, because ...
>
>
>Give the problems with building are identified as an issue with the
>testing, not the main code, I am happy to release this build.
>
>>
>> Checking needed:
>>
>> + does everything work on Linux?
>
>Only problems were the security tests.
>
>> + does everything work on MS Windows?
>> + does everything work on OS X?
>
>> + is the GPG signature fine?
>Yes
>> + are the checksums correct?
>Yes
>> + is there a source archive?
>Yes
>> + can the source archive really be built?
>Yes, it can be built.
>
>> + is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact
>> (both source and binary artifacts)?
>Yes
>> + does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions?
>Yes
>> + have any licenses of dependencies changed due to upgrades?
>> if so have LICENSE and NOTICE been upgraded appropriately?
>Yes
>> + does the tag in the SCM contain reproducible sources?
>Yes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Jena 2.12.1 and Fuseki 1.1.1 (RC 2)
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
> Please vote to approve this release:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
+1
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Don't release, because ...
Give the problems with building are identified as an issue with the
testing, not the main code, I am happy to release this build.
>
> Checking needed:
>
> + does everything work on Linux?
Only problems were the security tests.
> + does everything work on MS Windows?
> + does everything work on OS X?
> + is the GPG signature fine?
Yes
> + are the checksums correct?
Yes
> + is there a source archive?
Yes
> + can the source archive really be built?
Yes, it can be built.
> + is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact
> (both source and binary artifacts)?
Yes
> + does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions?
Yes
> + have any licenses of dependencies changed due to upgrades?
> if so have LICENSE and NOTICE been upgraded appropriately?
Yes
> + does the tag in the SCM contain reproducible sources?
Yes
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [] Release Jena 2.12.1 and Fuseki 1.1.1 (RC 2)
Posted by Claude Warren <cl...@xenei.com>.
I think the changes I just checked in will fix the problem. I was able to
build and test on Ubuntu using Java 8.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Claude Warren <cl...@xenei.com> wrote:
> I found an issue in the source. Though I don't know how it ever worked.
> I have built from scratch.
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm still having problems with jena-security from the source-release.
>>
>> From the git tag works and the file trees for jena-security check as
>> identical (diff -ur).
>>
>> The difference from rc1 is that now java-7-openjdk fails (more often than
>> not) and java-8-oracle fails every time. I would like to believe it is a
>> problem at my end but I am failing to come up with any theories as to what
>> it might be.
>>
>> Has anyone else succeeded in building from the source-release? On ubuntu?
>>
>> All the other checks are fine.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> java version "1.8.0_20"
>> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_20-b26)
>> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.20-b23, mixed mode)
>>
>> java version "1.7.0_65"
>> OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea 2.5.2) (7u65-2.5.2-3~14.04)
>> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 24.65-b04, mixed mode)
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
> <http://like-like.xenei.com>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
>
--
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
<http://like-like.xenei.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
Re: [] Release Jena 2.12.1 and Fuseki 1.1.1 (RC 2)
Posted by Claude Warren <cl...@xenei.com>.
I found an issue in the source. Though I don't know how it ever worked. I
have built from scratch.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm still having problems with jena-security from the source-release.
>
> From the git tag works and the file trees for jena-security check as
> identical (diff -ur).
>
> The difference from rc1 is that now java-7-openjdk fails (more often than
> not) and java-8-oracle fails every time. I would like to believe it is a
> problem at my end but I am failing to come up with any theories as to what
> it might be.
>
> Has anyone else succeeded in building from the source-release? On ubuntu?
>
> All the other checks are fine.
>
> Andy
>
> java version "1.8.0_20"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_20-b26)
> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.20-b23, mixed mode)
>
> java version "1.7.0_65"
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea 2.5.2) (7u65-2.5.2-3~14.04)
> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 24.65-b04, mixed mode)
>
>
--
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
<http://like-like.xenei.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
Re: [] Release Jena 2.12.1 and Fuseki 1.1.1 (RC 2)
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
I'm still having problems with jena-security from the source-release.
From the git tag works and the file trees for jena-security check as
identical (diff -ur).
The difference from rc1 is that now java-7-openjdk fails (more often
than not) and java-8-oracle fails every time. I would like to believe
it is a problem at my end but I am failing to come up with any theories
as to what it might be.
Has anyone else succeeded in building from the source-release? On ubuntu?
All the other checks are fine.
Andy
java version "1.8.0_20"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_20-b26)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.20-b23, mixed mode)
java version "1.7.0_65"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea 2.5.2) (7u65-2.5.2-3~14.04)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 24.65-b04, mixed mode)