You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org> on 2008/03/27 08:26:46 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Hi,
it is now more then 6 month since we released Apache Directory Studio
1.0.1. I think it is high time to push a new 1.1.0 release.
We had two RC releases and got some feedback and bug reports from users.
So I think it is stable enough for the GA release.
We fixed 63 bugs and implemented 36 new features or improvements. Here
you could find the release notes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310590&styleName=Html&version=12312701
Let's vote on the release:
[ ] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
[ ] +/-0 Abstain
[ ] -1 Do NOT release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Kind Regards,
Stefan Seelmann
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Hi David,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:27 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> -1
> I'm all for releasing ADS 1.1.0 real soon now and have no problems with
> the code but...
> This doesn't say what we're voting on. While I prefer voting on actual
> artifacts that I can check I'm ok with voting on a specific svn revision of
> a particular code base as long as its clearly specified together with the
> expected build method. This vote looks to me like a referendum on "should
> we tag something and vote on the tag" rather than a vote on something
> specific.
>
> So, I'll guess randomly :-) that this is intended to be a vote
> on directory/studio/trunk rev 641069.
>
Stefan did not said it in his mail but we're not voting on the trunk but on
the 1.1.0 branch (
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/studio/branches/1.1.0/).
> First, and this is a blocker, there are no hardcoded LICENSE and NOTICE
> files in svn at the checkout root. I'm happy to help with constructing
> appropriate files but since I don't know anything about studio I can't
> really do it myself. If all the files in svn under the checkout root is asf
> licensed with no other restrictions (such as from being copied from
> somewhere else) then the AL goes in the LICENSE and the NOTICE file is the
> minimal:
>
> ----------
> Apache Directory Studio Copyright xxx-2008 The Apache Software Foundation
> This product includes software developed byThe Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org/).----------
> If there is code from other sources please let me know what it is and I'll
> try to help figure out what we need to do. I don't know the Studio
> inception year... this needs to replace the xxx. Neither this LICENSE nor
> NOTICE file needs to reflect any dependencies of the project, just the stuff
> that is actually in svn.
>
I did not know having a LICENSE and NOTICE file was needed at the root of
the repository, I thought LICENSE and NOTICE were only needed in the
META-INF of the jars.
I followed the guideline explained here:
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
As it is said, all our distributions include LICENSE and NOTICE files in the
top directory.
> Since this doesn't specify an expected build method I have to assume it
> uses the only one I know about... maven. In this case this is not suitable
> for release since it has a snapshot parent pom:
>
> <parent>
> <groupId>org.apache.directory.project</groupId>
> <artifactId>project</artifactId>
> <version>10-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </parent>
>
> I'm also slightly worried about the SNAPSHOT versions in the properties
> in http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/studio/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup.
> They might get changed to something that aren't snapshots during the actual
> release process but I have no way to know that.
>
> It's also extremely desirable to lock down all the maven plugins with
> explicit versions.
>
In the 1.1.0 branch we want to release there are no SNAPSHOTs. The trunk is
currently the home for our next version (1.2, 1.3, etc.)
> Another thing I'm concerned about from a few days ago is that the maven
> build produces some kind of update site thingy that doesn't include legal
> files. I disabled the check for legal files for it. If this is something
> that might get into a maven repo this needs to be fixed.
>
This update site is not going to go into any maven repo. It's going to be
hosted on our website.
The update site has be used within Eclipse to install Apache Directory
Studio features.
NOTICE and LICENSE files are included in each feature package and the user
is asked to accept the Apache Software License when installing Studio.
Hope this helps,
Pierre-Arnaud
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Hi Emmanuel,
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I suggest that we freeze the code, create a branch (1.1.0-GA) and vote
> this branch.
>
> Is that OK ?
Completely OK.
Actually the vote was about an already existing branch (
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/studio/branches/1.1.0/) which was
the home of our 1.1.0 developments.
Hope this helps,
Pierre-Arnaud
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Take 2, after a good sleep :)
David, you are plain right. I rehashed the full mail again this
morning under my shower, and what you said about revision is just
correct.
Forgive my previous answer.
I suggest that we freeze the code, create a branch (1.1.0-GA) and vote
this branch.
Is that OK ?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:27 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > -1
> > I'm all for releasing ADS 1.1.0 real soon now and have no problems with the
> > code but...
> > This doesn't say what we're voting on.
>
> We are voting on the Roadmap version (cf JIRA). As soon as all the
> issues are closed, we can vote. If every modification and every bug
> is filled into JIRA, this is the way to go.
>
>
> While I prefer voting on actual
> > artifacts that I can check I'm ok with voting on a specific svn revision of
> > a particular code base as long as its clearly specified together with the
> > expected build method. This vote looks to me like a referendum on "should
> > we tag something and vote on the tag" rather than a vote on something
> > specific.
> No, this is not a referendum. I really think that a project should be
> JIRA driven, and not SVN driven. That does not make a lot of sense to
> vote for a SVN IMHO, because there are so much little changes which
> could be committed after a vote... Like some svn:ignore tags, or
> whatever cosmetic fixes.
>
> At least, this is the way we work at Directory, and this is now 3
> years and many votes we have proceeded this way.
>
> I'm sure that other projects prefer some other 'algorithm', but I'm
> pretty confident that we are not completly off the track following
> JIRA's roadmap.
>
>
>
> > So, I'll guess randomly :-) that this is intended to be a vote on
> > directory/studio/trunk rev 641069.
>
> No, this will be a vote on Studio 1.1.0 as described in JIRA roadmap
> for this project.
>
>
> >
> > First, and this is a blocker, there are no hardcoded LICENSE and NOTICE
> > files in svn at the checkout root. I'm happy to help with constructing
> > appropriate files but since I don't know anything about studio I can't
> > really do it myself. If all the files in svn under the checkout root is asf
> > licensed with no other restrictions (such as from being copied from
> > somewhere else) then the AL goes in the LICENSE and the NOTICE file is the
> > minimal:
> >
> > ----------
> > Apache Directory Studio Copyright xxx-2008 The Apache Software Foundation
> > This product includes software developed byThe Apache Software Foundation
> > (http://www.apache.org/).
> > ----------
> > If there is code from other sources please let me know what it is and I'll
> > try to help figure out what we need to do. I don't know the Studio
> > inception year... this needs to replace the xxx. Neither this LICENSE nor
> > NOTICE file needs to reflect any dependencies of the project, just the stuff
> > that is actually in svn.
>
> This is something we should clearly address before releasing.
> Pierre-Arnaud, Stefan ?
>
>
>
> > Since this doesn't specify an expected build method I have to assume it uses
> > the only one I know about... maven.
>
> Felix, Pierre-Arnaud and Stefan spent more than one month creating a
> Maven build for this project, with a lot of sweat and blood... So yes,
> we have a maven build for Studio now !
>
>
> In this case this is not suitable for
> > release since it has a snapshot parent pom:
> >
> >
> > <parent>
> > <groupId>org.apache.directory.project</groupId>
> > <artifactId>project</artifactId>
> > <version>10-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > </parent>
> >
> > I'm also slightly worried about the SNAPSHOT versions in the properties in
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/studio/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup.
> > They might get changed to something that aren't snapshots during the actual
> > release process but I have no way to know that.
>
> In order to release, we usually create a freezed branch, and we setup
> all the versions in this branch. As soon as the vote is closed, then
> it becomes the release. I think the process is defined on our wiki
> (http://directory.apache.org/studio/releasing-a-new-version.html), but
> this may need some twiking...
>
>
> >
> > It's also extremely desirable to lock down all the maven plugins with
> > explicit versions.
>
> I haven't looked at the pom.xml files, but if there is no dependency
> manager, we must add one.
>
>
> >
> > Another thing I'm concerned about from a few days ago is that the maven
> > build produces some kind of update site thingy that doesn't include legal
> > files. I disabled the check for legal files for it. If this is something
> > that might get into a maven repo this needs to be fixed.
>
> We have to check the lack of legal files.
>
> >
> > sorry...
>
> Don't. Those are important matters, and we have to clean the place
> now, otherwise, we will carry those guys for another 6 months period
> ...
>
>
> Thanks David !
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
>
>
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:27 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> -1
> I'm all for releasing ADS 1.1.0 real soon now and have no problems with the
> code but...
> This doesn't say what we're voting on.
We are voting on the Roadmap version (cf JIRA). As soon as all the
issues are closed, we can vote. If every modification and every bug
is filled into JIRA, this is the way to go.
While I prefer voting on actual
> artifacts that I can check I'm ok with voting on a specific svn revision of
> a particular code base as long as its clearly specified together with the
> expected build method. This vote looks to me like a referendum on "should
> we tag something and vote on the tag" rather than a vote on something
> specific.
No, this is not a referendum. I really think that a project should be
JIRA driven, and not SVN driven. That does not make a lot of sense to
vote for a SVN IMHO, because there are so much little changes which
could be committed after a vote... Like some svn:ignore tags, or
whatever cosmetic fixes.
At least, this is the way we work at Directory, and this is now 3
years and many votes we have proceeded this way.
I'm sure that other projects prefer some other 'algorithm', but I'm
pretty confident that we are not completly off the track following
JIRA's roadmap.
> So, I'll guess randomly :-) that this is intended to be a vote on
> directory/studio/trunk rev 641069.
No, this will be a vote on Studio 1.1.0 as described in JIRA roadmap
for this project.
>
> First, and this is a blocker, there are no hardcoded LICENSE and NOTICE
> files in svn at the checkout root. I'm happy to help with constructing
> appropriate files but since I don't know anything about studio I can't
> really do it myself. If all the files in svn under the checkout root is asf
> licensed with no other restrictions (such as from being copied from
> somewhere else) then the AL goes in the LICENSE and the NOTICE file is the
> minimal:
>
> ----------
> Apache Directory Studio Copyright xxx-2008 The Apache Software Foundation
> This product includes software developed byThe Apache Software Foundation
> (http://www.apache.org/).
> ----------
> If there is code from other sources please let me know what it is and I'll
> try to help figure out what we need to do. I don't know the Studio
> inception year... this needs to replace the xxx. Neither this LICENSE nor
> NOTICE file needs to reflect any dependencies of the project, just the stuff
> that is actually in svn.
This is something we should clearly address before releasing.
Pierre-Arnaud, Stefan ?
> Since this doesn't specify an expected build method I have to assume it uses
> the only one I know about... maven.
Felix, Pierre-Arnaud and Stefan spent more than one month creating a
Maven build for this project, with a lot of sweat and blood... So yes,
we have a maven build for Studio now !
In this case this is not suitable for
> release since it has a snapshot parent pom:
>
>
> <parent>
> <groupId>org.apache.directory.project</groupId>
> <artifactId>project</artifactId>
> <version>10-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </parent>
>
> I'm also slightly worried about the SNAPSHOT versions in the properties in
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/studio/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup.
> They might get changed to something that aren't snapshots during the actual
> release process but I have no way to know that.
In order to release, we usually create a freezed branch, and we setup
all the versions in this branch. As soon as the vote is closed, then
it becomes the release. I think the process is defined on our wiki
(http://directory.apache.org/studio/releasing-a-new-version.html), but
this may need some twiking...
>
> It's also extremely desirable to lock down all the maven plugins with
> explicit versions.
I haven't looked at the pom.xml files, but if there is no dependency
manager, we must add one.
>
> Another thing I'm concerned about from a few days ago is that the maven
> build produces some kind of update site thingy that doesn't include legal
> files. I disabled the check for legal files for it. If this is something
> that might get into a maven repo this needs to be fixed.
We have to check the lack of legal files.
>
> sorry...
Don't. Those are important matters, and we have to clean the place
now, otherwise, we will carry those guys for another 6 months period
...
Thanks David !
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: [VOTE] [Results] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Hi,
I just deployed the different packages for the standalone application and
the jars for the updatesite (plugins and features).
Now, we have to wait for the replication.
I'll update the download links on the website and the site.xml file for the
update site as soon as the replication is done.
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>
wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > @Pierre-Arnaud:
> > Could you please manage the release, you are much more familiar with the
> > process and I can't find enought time these days. Many thanks.
> >
>
> No problem. I'll do this tomorrow morning.
>
> Regards,
> Pierre-Arnaud
>
Re: [VOTE] [Results] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Hi Stefan,
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>
wrote:
> @Pierre-Arnaud:
> Could you please manage the release, you are much more familiar with the
> process and I can't find enought time these days. Many thanks.
>
No problem. I'll do this tomorrow morning.
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
[VOTE] [Results] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>.
Hi
Here are the results for the vote.
Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0:
* 6 +1 votes
o Emmanuel Lécharny
o Alex Karasulu
o Ersin Er
o Stefan Zoerner
o Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot
o Felix Knecht (non-binding)
* No +/-0 vote
* One -1 vote
o David Jencks (non-binding)
Lets go to release the packages and update the website, online
documentation and update site.
@Pierre-Arnaud:
Could you please manage the release, you are much more familiar with the
process and I can't find enought time these days. Many thanks.
Kind Regards,
Stefan Seelmann
Alex Karasulu schrieb:
> Close the vote you have had enough binding votes. Also the issues that
> David raised have been fixed. Just close the vote. It's a success.
>
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa@marcelot.net
> <ma...@marcelot.net>> wrote:
>
> Is the person who started the vote the only who can close it?
> Or, for example, can I close it (and launch another one)?
>
> Thanks,
> Pierre-Arnaud
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny
> <elecharny@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> This vote has been open for a little while now.
>
> What should we do about it?
>
> What about closing it and reopening a new one ?
>
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
>
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com <http://www.iktek.com>
> directory.apache.org <http://directory.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
Close the vote you have had enough binding votes. Also the issues that
David raised have been fixed. Just close the vote. It's a success.
Alex
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>
wrote:
> Is the person who started the vote the only who can close it?
> Or, for example, can I close it (and launch another one)?
>
> Thanks,
> Pierre-Arnaud
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > This vote has been open for a little while now.
> > >
> > > What should we do about it?
> > >
> > What about closing it and reopening a new one ?
> >
> > --
> > --
> > cordialement, regards,
> > Emmanuel Lécharny
> > www.iktek.com
> > directory.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Is the person who started the vote the only who can close it?
Or, for example, can I close it (and launch another one)?
Thanks,
Pierre-Arnaud
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > This vote has been open for a little while now.
> >
> > What should we do about it?
> >
> What about closing it and reopening a new one ?
>
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> directory.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
> Guys,
>
> This vote has been open for a little while now.
>
> What should we do about it?
What about closing it and reopening a new one ?
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot schrieb:
> Guys,
>
> This vote has been open for a little while now.
>
> What should we do about it?
- Count the votes from PMC members and make a decision the release or not ? ;-)
- Open the next vote with
"This majority vote stays open for 72 hours."
then your sure when the vote is over.
Maybe it's an idea ;-)
Felix
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Guys,
This vote has been open for a little while now.
What should we do about it?
Thanks,
Pierre-Arnaud
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>
wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:07 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As (in my experience) most process bits of ASF stuff any docs you may
> > find are generally wrong and if you ask any collection of old-timers you get
> > a different answer from each. However there's been a lot of discussion on
> > legal-discuss recently and after a lot of prodding there seems to be
> > consensus that:
> > - all distribution units need LICENSE and NOTICE files
> > - expected svn checkout units form a "distribution" so need to include
> > LICENSE and NOTICE files
> > - all other LICENSE and NOTICE files can be generated or from svn
> > - each LICENSE and NOTICE file refers only to the contents of the
> > distribution unit, not anything such as required dependencies that might be
> > needed to use it.
> >
>
> Thanks.
> We comply with all these rules except for the inclusion of the LICENSE and
> NOTICE files at the SVN checkout root.
> I'm going to add them.
>
>
>
> > .../trunk and ..../branches/1.1.0 since those are what we expect people
> > to check out if they want to build it themselves.
> >
>
> Ok, I'm going to add them in both locations.
>
>
> I haven't had time to look at this branch. Is it built with maven? I'm
> > not sure if I'll have time to look soon. If you guys are confident that all
> > the artifacts have appropriate legal files and there are no snapshots in any
> > maven build (if used) I'm happy to change to +0.
> >
>
> Yeah, It is built with Maven. Here are the instructions to build Studio:
> http://directory.apache.org/studio/building.html
>
> Regards,
> Pierre-Arnaud
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Hi David,
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:07 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As (in my experience) most process bits of ASF stuff any docs you may find
> are generally wrong and if you ask any collection of old-timers you get a
> different answer from each. However there's been a lot of discussion on
> legal-discuss recently and after a lot of prodding there seems to be
> consensus that:
> - all distribution units need LICENSE and NOTICE files
> - expected svn checkout units form a "distribution" so need to include
> LICENSE and NOTICE files
> - all other LICENSE and NOTICE files can be generated or from svn
> - each LICENSE and NOTICE file refers only to the contents of the
> distribution unit, not anything such as required dependencies that might be
> needed to use it.
>
Thanks.
We comply with all these rules except for the inclusion of the LICENSE and
NOTICE files at the SVN checkout root.
I'm going to add them.
> .../trunk and ..../branches/1.1.0 since those are what we expect people to
> check out if they want to build it themselves.
>
Ok, I'm going to add them in both locations.
I haven't had time to look at this branch. Is it built with maven? I'm not
> sure if I'll have time to look soon. If you guys are confident that all the
> artifacts have appropriate legal files and there are no snapshots in any
> maven build (if used) I'm happy to change to +0.
>
Yeah, It is built with Maven. Here are the instructions to build Studio:
http://directory.apache.org/studio/building.html
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:40 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 7:27 PM, David Jencks
> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> First, and this is a blocker, there are no hardcoded LICENSE and
> NOTICE files in svn at the checkout root.
>
> I looked at the Dev site at Apache (http://apache.org/dev/) and
> could not find the place where it is explicitely said that LICENSE
> and NOTICE files are required in SVN at the checkout root. Even
> though, I'm not against adding them in here. ;)
> I'm just curious of any legal document I'm not aware of. Could you
> point me to that page please ?
As (in my experience) most process bits of ASF stuff any docs you may
find are generally wrong and if you ask any collection of old-timers
you get a different answer from each. However there's been a lot of
discussion on legal-discuss recently and after a lot of prodding
there seems to be consensus that:
- all distribution units need LICENSE and NOTICE files
- expected svn checkout units form a "distribution" so need to
include LICENSE and NOTICE files
- all other LICENSE and NOTICE files can be generated or from svn
- each LICENSE and NOTICE file refers only to the contents of the
distribution unit, not anything such as required dependencies that
might be needed to use it.
>
>
> Where should we have these files?
> At /directory/studio? Or both at /directory/studio/trunk and /
> directory/studio/branches/1.1.0?
.../trunk and ..../branches/1.1.0 since those are what we expect
people to check out if they want to build it themselves.
>
> Thanks.
>
> As I explained in my previous mails, this vote was about the 1.1.0
> branch (/directory/studio/branches/1.1
> .0) and we should have been more explicit. Is your vote still -1
> for this branch ?
I haven't had time to look at this branch. Is it built with maven?
I'm not sure if I'll have time to look soon. If you guys are
confident that all the artifacts have appropriate legal files and
there are no snapshots in any maven build (if used) I'm happy to
change to +0.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
> I'm going to add DIRSTUDIO-313 (Copyright in Splash Screen and Help
> Dialog is still 2007) to the 1.1.0 roadmap. It's an easy fix and as
> it deals with copyright I think it's important to fix it right now.
>
> Regards,
> Pierre-Arnaud
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>.
Hi David,
sorry, I was busy last weekend. Seems I ignored some rules how to
release, sorry for that.
We still have all the eclipse dependencies in svn under
/directory/studio/branches/1.1.0/repository because these artifacts are
now available in public maven repositories.
Kind Regards,
Stefan Seelmann
Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot schrieb:
> Hi David,
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 7:27 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
> <ma...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> First, and this is a blocker, there are no hardcoded LICENSE and
> NOTICE files in svn at the checkout root.
>
>
> I looked at the Dev site at Apache (http://apache.org/dev/) and could
> not find the place where it is explicitely said that LICENSE and NOTICE
> files are required in SVN at the checkout root. Even though, I'm not
> against adding them in here. ;)
> I'm just curious of any legal document I'm not aware of. Could you point
> me to that page please ?
>
> Where should we have these files?
> At /directory/studio? Or both at /directory/studio/trunk and
> /directory/studio/branches/1.1.0?
> Thanks.
>
> As I explained in my previous mails, this vote was about the 1.1.0
> branch (/directory/studio/branches/1.1
> .0) and we should have been more explicit. Is your vote still -1 for
> this branch ?
>
> I'm going to add DIRSTUDIO-313 (Copyright in Splash Screen and Help
> Dialog is still 2007) to the 1.1.0 roadmap. It's an easy fix and as it
> deals with copyright I think it's important to fix it right now.
>
> Regards,
> Pierre-Arnaud
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Hi David,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 7:27 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> First, and this is a blocker, there are no hardcoded LICENSE and NOTICE
> files in svn at the checkout root.
>
I looked at the Dev site at Apache (http://apache.org/dev/) and could not
find the place where it is explicitely said that LICENSE and NOTICE files
are required in SVN at the checkout root. Even though, I'm not against
adding them in here. ;)
I'm just curious of any legal document I'm not aware of. Could you point me
to that page please ?
Where should we have these files?
At /directory/studio? Or both at /directory/studio/trunk and
/directory/studio/branches/1.1.0?
Thanks.
As I explained in my previous mails, this vote was about the 1.1.0 branch
(/directory/studio/branches/1.1.0) and we should have been more explicit. Is
your vote still -1 for this branch ?
I'm going to add DIRSTUDIO-313 (Copyright in Splash Screen and Help Dialog
is still 2007) to the 1.1.0 roadmap. It's an easy fix and as it deals with
copyright I think it's important to fix it right now.
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
-1
I'm all for releasing ADS 1.1.0 real soon now and have no problems
with the code but...
This doesn't say what we're voting on. While I prefer voting on
actual artifacts that I can check I'm ok with voting on a specific
svn revision of a particular code base as long as its clearly
specified together with the expected build method. This vote looks
to me like a referendum on "should we tag something and vote on the
tag" rather than a vote on something specific.
So, I'll guess randomly :-) that this is intended to be a vote on
directory/studio/trunk rev 641069.
First, and this is a blocker, there are no hardcoded LICENSE and
NOTICE files in svn at the checkout root. I'm happy to help with
constructing appropriate files but since I don't know anything about
studio I can't really do it myself. If all the files in svn under
the checkout root is asf licensed with no other restrictions (such as
from being copied from somewhere else) then the AL goes in the
LICENSE and the NOTICE file is the minimal:
----------
Apache Directory Studio
Copyright xxx-2008 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed by
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
----------
If there is code from other sources please let me know what it is and
I'll try to help figure out what we need to do. I don't know the
Studio inception year... this needs to replace the xxx. Neither this
LICENSE nor NOTICE file needs to reflect any dependencies of the
project, just the stuff that is actually in svn.
Since this doesn't specify an expected build method I have to assume
it uses the only one I know about... maven. In this case this is not
suitable for release since it has a snapshot parent pom:
<parent>
<groupId>org.apache.directory.project</groupId>
<artifactId>project</artifactId>
<version>10-SNAPSHOT</version>
</parent>
I'm also slightly worried about the SNAPSHOT versions in the
properties in http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/studio/trunk/
pom.xml?view=markup. They might get changed to something that aren't
snapshots during the actual release process but I have no way to know
that.
It's also extremely desirable to lock down all the maven plugins with
explicit versions.
Another thing I'm concerned about from a few days ago is that the
maven build produces some kind of update site thingy that doesn't
include legal files. I disabled the check for legal files for it.
If this is something that might get into a maven repo this needs to
be fixed.
sorry...
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 27, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it is now more then 6 month since we released Apache Directory Studio
> 1.0.1. I think it is high time to push a new 1.1.0 release.
>
> We had two RC releases and got some feedback and bug reports from
> users.
> So I think it is stable enough for the GA release.
>
> We fixed 63 bugs and implemented 36 new features or improvements. Here
> you could find the release notes:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> projectId=12310590&styleName=Html&version=12312701
>
> Let's vote on the release:
> [ ] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
> [ ] +/-0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Do NOT release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
>
> Kind Regards,
> Stefan Seelmann
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
[X] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > it is now more then 6 month since we released Apache Directory Studio
> > 1.0.1. I think it is high time to push a new 1.1.0 release.
> >
> > We had two RC releases and got some feedback and bug reports from users.
> > So I think it is stable enough for the GA release.
> >
> > We fixed 63 bugs and implemented 36 new features or improvements. Here
> > you could find the release notes:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310590&styleName=Html&version=12312701
> >
> >
> > Let's vote on the release:
> > [X] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
>
> Great job, guys !!!
>
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> directory.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it is now more then 6 month since we released Apache Directory Studio
> 1.0.1. I think it is high time to push a new 1.1.0 release.
>
> We had two RC releases and got some feedback and bug reports from users.
> So I think it is stable enough for the GA release.
>
> We fixed 63 bugs and implemented 36 new features or improvements. Here
> you could find the release notes:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310590&styleName=Html&version=12312701
>
>
> Let's vote on the release:
> [X] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Great job, guys !!!
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
[X] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Alex
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
>
> Let's vote on the release:
> [ ] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
> [ ] +/-0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Do NOT release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
>
+1 non binding
Regards
Felix
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Ersin Er <er...@gmail.com>.
[X] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it is now more then 6 month since we released Apache Directory Studio
> 1.0.1. I think it is high time to push a new 1.1.0 release.
>
> We had two RC releases and got some feedback and bug reports from users.
> So I think it is stable enough for the GA release.
>
> We fixed 63 bugs and implemented 36 new features or improvements. Here
> you could find the release notes:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310590&styleName=Html&version=12312701
>
> Let's vote on the release:
> [ ] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
> [ ] +/-0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Do NOT release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
>
> Kind Regards,
> Stefan Seelmann
>
>
--
Ersin Er
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Stefan Zoerner <sz...@apache.org>.
Stefan Seelmann wrote:
> Let's vote on the release:
> [ ] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
> [ ] +/-0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Do NOT release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
+1
Greetings from Hamburg,
Stefan
---8<---
Stefan Zoerner (szoerner@apache.org)
Committer :: PMC Member
Apache Directory Project
http://directory.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Hi,
Just in case you want to test it out, I've created the release packages and
I'm currently uploading them on p.a.o.
You can find them here:
http://people.apache.org/~pamarcelot/Apache%20Directory%20Studio%201.1.0%20Packages/
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Chris Custine <cc...@apache.org> wrote:
> [X] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
> [ ] +/-0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Do NOT release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
>
> I have been using Studio 1.1 a lot lately, working very well for me!
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > it is now more then 6 month since we released Apache Directory Studio
> > 1.0.1. I think it is high time to push a new 1.1.0 release.
> >
> > We had two RC releases and got some feedback and bug reports from users.
> > So I think it is stable enough for the GA release.
> >
> > We fixed 63 bugs and implemented 36 new features or improvements. Here
> > you could find the release notes:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310590&styleName=Html&version=12312701
> >
> > Let's vote on the release:
> > [ ] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
> > [ ] +/-0 Abstain
> > [ ] -1 Do NOT release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Stefan Seelmann
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Posted by Chris Custine <cc...@apache.org>.
[X] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
[ ] +/-0 Abstain
[ ] -1 Do NOT release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
I have been using Studio 1.1 a lot lately, working very well for me!
Chris
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it is now more then 6 month since we released Apache Directory Studio
> 1.0.1. I think it is high time to push a new 1.1.0 release.
>
> We had two RC releases and got some feedback and bug reports from users.
> So I think it is stable enough for the GA release.
>
> We fixed 63 bugs and implemented 36 new features or improvements. Here
> you could find the release notes:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310590&styleName=Html&version=12312701
>
> Let's vote on the release:
> [ ] +1 Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
> [ ] +/-0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Do NOT release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
>
> Kind Regards,
> Stefan Seelmann
>
>