You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@aries.apache.org by Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> on 2010/04/10 02:42:46 UTC
[VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
Modules staged at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
are:
parent
eba-maven-plugin
testsupport
util
transaction
web
application
jmx
jpa
samples
Modules staged at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
are:
blueprint
jndi
The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
The vote will be open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1
[ ] +0
[ ] -1
Thanks,
Jeremy
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by The Dweller <ba...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 14 April 2010 15:12, Valentin Mahrwald <vm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On 10 Apr 2010, at 01:42, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>
> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
>> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
>> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>>
>> Modules staged at
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
>> are:
>>
>> parent
>> eba-maven-plugin
>> testsupport
>> util
>> transaction
>> web
>> application
>> jmx
>> jpa
>> samples
>>
>> Modules staged at
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
>> are:
>>
>> blueprint
>> jndi
>>
>> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>>
>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jeremy
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Valentin Mahrwald <vm...@googlemail.com>.
+1
On 10 Apr 2010, at 01:42, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>
> Modules staged at
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
> are:
>
> parent
> eba-maven-plugin
> testsupport
> util
> transaction
> web
> application
> jmx
> jpa
> samples
>
> Modules staged at
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
> are:
>
> blueprint
> jndi
>
> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>
> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 14, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Valentin Mahrwald wrote:
>
> On 14 Apr 2010, at 17:39, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> A few general notes to the community about Apache releases, since this is the first release. Fundamentally, release notes apply to source code. Although the svn tag is typically what you think about for a "release". The actual release, from an ASF perspective, is the source archive prepared by the release manager. Quite complicated in this case, since there are so many release archives (e.g. https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/org/apache/aries/blueprint/blueprint/0.1-incubating/blueprint-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip ) Actally building all of these projects is a pain in the rump...
>>
>> BTW, I sometimes diff the source "release" archive against the svn tag. Note that several of the release archives contain a DEPENDENCY file that isn't in svn. I don't see an issue releasing with the DEPENDENCY file, just pointing out that there can be differences...
>>
>> I've sampled the signature/checksums -- they look good. RAT output looks good. Build is painful, but worked.
>>
>> I see a few issues with the LICENSE files, however:
>>
>> 1) jpa-0.1-incubating includes two dual-licensed files (persistence-xsd.rsrc and persistence_2_0-xsd.rsrc). The LICENSE in the jar file properly reflects this. However, the files are also in the source. So, they also need to be included in the source LICENSE file
>> 2) Since Apache will not redistribute these files under GPL, we must explicitly choose the license we are applying to these files. As the license explains in these two files by including the following: "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
>
> So if I understand these two points correctly, we need to have the same license provisos that are currently in jpa-0.1-incubating/jpa-container/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE.vm and NOTICE.vm also as part of the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the jpa-0.1-incubating folder. Or should there be a separate LICENSE and NOTICE file for the jpa-container project because it is the only one with the extra external licenses?
Hi Valentin,
Good question. The former, IMO. jpa-0.1-incubating is the "project" being released. The root directory (i.e. tags/jpa-0.1-incubating/) should contain the LICENSE/NOTICE information which applies to the source for that "project". Unless there were explicit instructions in LICENSE file, I would not expect someone to search sub-directories (e.g. jpa-container) to find additional license information covering the source distribution. The .vm files may or may not be necessary after the root license/notice files are updated. I forget the exact mechanics on how they work. If they are in appended to the jpa-0.1-incubating/LICENSE (or NOTICE) file, they would now represent redundant information...
--kevan
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Valentin Mahrwald <vm...@googlemail.com>.
On 14 Apr 2010, at 17:39, Kevan Miller wrote:
> A few general notes to the community about Apache releases, since
> this is the first release. Fundamentally, release notes apply to
> source code. Although the svn tag is typically what you think about
> for a "release". The actual release, from an ASF perspective, is the
> source archive prepared by the release manager. Quite complicated in
> this case, since there are so many release archives (e.g. https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/org/apache/aries/blueprint/blueprint/0.1-incubating/blueprint-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip
> ) Actally building all of these projects is a pain in the rump...
>
> BTW, I sometimes diff the source "release" archive against the svn
> tag. Note that several of the release archives contain a DEPENDENCY
> file that isn't in svn. I don't see an issue releasing with the
> DEPENDENCY file, just pointing out that there can be differences...
>
> I've sampled the signature/checksums -- they look good. RAT output
> looks good. Build is painful, but worked.
>
> I see a few issues with the LICENSE files, however:
>
> 1) jpa-0.1-incubating includes two dual-licensed files (persistence-
> xsd.rsrc and persistence_2_0-xsd.rsrc). The LICENSE in the jar file
> properly reflects this. However, the files are also in the source.
> So, they also need to be included in the source LICENSE file
> 2) Since Apache will not redistribute these files under GPL, we must
> explicitly choose the license we are applying to these files. As the
> license explains in these two files by including the following:
> "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this distribution
> under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
So if I understand these two points correctly, we need to have the
same license provisos that are currently in jpa-0.1-incubating/jpa-
container/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE.vm and
NOTICE.vm also as part of the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the jpa-0.1-
incubating folder. Or should there be a separate LICENSE and NOTICE
file for the jpa-container project because it is the only one with the
extra external licenses?
> 3) org.apache.aries.transaction.manager-0.1-incubating.jar contains
> Geronimo and HOWL class files. However, the jar file does not
> properly reflect this in the LICENSE/NOTICE files. Geronimo should
> be fine, I think the Geronimo transaction notice file only refers to
> the geronimo project. However, the HOWL license needs to be included
> in the LICENSE file.
>
> Base on the above, I'm -1.
>
> I didn't see any other issues...
>
> --kevan
>
> On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>
>> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
>> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
>> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>>
>> Modules staged at
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
>> orgapachearies-008/
>> are:
>>
>> parent
>> eba-maven-plugin
>> testsupport
>> util
>> transaction
>> web
>> application
>> jmx
>> jpa
>> samples
>>
>> Modules staged at
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
>> orgapachearies-010/
>> are:
>>
>> blueprint
>> jndi
>>
>> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>>
>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jeremy
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com>.
Agreed. If you could check that in, that'd be great!
Lin
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, that is perhaps the best way to solve the issue - remove the version
> completely and depend on maven - as it should be. That works fine. A
> simple fix that we should include in a new RC.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>.
Yes, that is perhaps the best way to solve the issue - remove the
version completely and depend on maven - as it should be. That works
fine. A simple fix that we should include in a new RC.
There's also some suspicious SNAPSHOT references in the
eba-maven-plugin. From the looks of things they are just scaffolding
values and completely benign ... but it might be better to avoid
SNAPSHOT in scaffold values so that we can just do a grep of "SNAPSHOT"
and look for clean results to validate we haven't missed any.
Thanks,
Joe
On 4/14/10 4:19 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
> Hi Joe
>
> since you already have the env, could you try change line 92 of
> BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest
>
> MavenArtifactProvisionOption mapo =
> CoreOptions.mavenBundle().groupId("org.apache.aries.blueprint").artifactId("org.apache.aries.blueprint.sample").version(
> "0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT");
>
> to
>
> MavenArtifactProvisionOption mapo =
> mavenBundleInTest("org.apache.aries.blueprint",
> "org.apache.aries.blueprint.sample");
>
> I hope that would resolve the prob
>
> Thanks
>
> Lin
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Joe Bohn<jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think I found another problem while trying to build from the source
>> archives. I get a test failure from the blueprint itests - it seems there
>> is still a snapshot reference for the tests. This wasn't a problem the
>> earlier when I built from the svn tag because I hadn't cleaned out my repo
>> so it was able to resolve the reference. However, while building from the
>> source archive I decided I should clean my local repo first and it uncovered
>> this problem.
>>
>> It seems that one of the Blueprint tests still has a SNAPSHOT reference:
>>
>> blueprint-itests/src/test/java/org/apache/aries/blueprint/itests/BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest.java:
>>
>> Here's the failure:
>>
>> Test set:
>> org.apache.aries.blueprint.itests.BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 4.231 sec
>> <<< FAILURE!
>> test
>> [equinox/3.5.1](org.apache.aries.blueprint.itests.BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest)
>> Time elapsed: 4.185 sec<<< ERROR!
>> java.lang.RuntimeException: URL
>> [mvn:org.apache.aries.blueprint/org.apache.aries.blueprint.sample/0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT]
>> could not be resolved.
>> at
>> org.ops4j.pax.url.mvn.internal.Connection.getInputStream(Connection.java:195)
>> at java.net.URL.openStream(URL.java:1010)
>> at
>> org.apache.aries.blueprint.itests.BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest.test(BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest.java:94)
>> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>> at
>> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>> at
>> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
>> at
>> org.ops4j.pax.exam.junit.extender.impl.internal.CallableTestMethodImpl.injectContextAndInvoke(CallableTestMethodImpl.java:134)
>> at
>> org.ops4j.pax.exam.junit.extender.impl.internal.CallableTestMethodImpl.call(CallableTestMethodImpl.java:101)
>> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>> at
>> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>> at
>> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
>> at
>> org.ops4j.pax.exam.rbc.internal.RemoteBundleContextImpl.remoteCall(RemoteBundleContextImpl.java:80)
>> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>> at
>> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>> at
>> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
>> at
>> sun.rmi.server.UnicastServerRef.dispatch(UnicastServerRef.java:305)
>> at sun.rmi.transport.Transport$1.run(Transport.java:159)
>> at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
>> at sun.rmi.transport.Transport.serviceCall(Transport.java:155)
>> at
>> sun.rmi.transport.tcp.TCPTransport.handleMessages(TCPTransport.java:535)
>> at
>> sun.rmi.transport.tcp.TCPTransport$ConnectionHandler.run0(TCPTransport.java:790)
>> at
>> sun.rmi.transport.tcp.TCPTransport$ConnectionHandler.run(TCPTransport.java:649)
>> at
>> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886)
>> at
>> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:908)
>> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/14/10 2:26 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/14/10 12:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A few general notes to the community about Apache releases, since this
>>>> is the first release. Fundamentally, release notes apply to source
>>>> code. Although the svn tag is typically what you think about for a
>>>> "release". The actual release, from an ASF perspective, is the source
>>>> archive prepared by the release manager. Quite complicated in this
>>>> case, since there are so many release archives (e.g.
>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/org/apache/aries/blueprint/blueprint/0.1-incubating/blueprint-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip
>>>> )
>>>
>>> Good point. I reviewed the tag but didn't look in detail at these
>>> archives. Looking a bit more closely I see the following:
>>>
>>> - Instead of just parent there are 3 source "parent" archives: parent,
>>> default-parent, and java5-parent. Was that by design?
>>> - I don't see a samples source archive anywhere.
>>>
>>> Based upon the missing samples archive, Kevan's license concerns, and
>>> the missing samples archive I have to change my vote to "-1".
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actally building all of these projects is a pain in the rump...
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I sometimes diff the source "release" archive against the svn
>>>> tag. Note that several of the release archives contain a DEPENDENCY
>>>> file that isn't in svn. I don't see an issue releasing with the
>>>> DEPENDENCY file, just pointing out that there can be differences...
>>>>
>>>> I've sampled the signature/checksums -- they look good. RAT output
>>>> looks good. Build is painful, but worked.
>>>>
>>>> I see a few issues with the LICENSE files, however:
>>>>
>>>> 1) jpa-0.1-incubating includes two dual-licensed files
>>>> (persistence-xsd.rsrc and persistence_2_0-xsd.rsrc). The LICENSE in
>>>> the jar file properly reflects this. However, the files are also in
>>>> the source. So, they also need to be included in the source LICENSE file
>>>> 2) Since Apache will not redistribute these files under GPL, we must
>>>> explicitly choose the license we are applying to these files. As the
>>>> license explains in these two files by including the following:
>>>> "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this distribution
>>>> under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
>>>> 3) org.apache.aries.transaction.manager-0.1-incubating.jar contains
>>>> Geronimo and HOWL class files. However, the jar file does not properly
>>>> reflect this in the LICENSE/NOTICE files. Geronimo should be fine, I
>>>> think the Geronimo transaction notice file only refers to the geronimo
>>>> project. However, the HOWL license needs to be included in the LICENSE
>>>> file.
>>>>
>>>> Base on the above, I'm -1.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't see any other issues...
>>>>
>>>> --kevan
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
>>>>> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
>>>>> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modules staged at
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
>>>>> are:
>>>>>
>>>>> parent
>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>> testsupport
>>>>> util
>>>>> transaction
>>>>> web
>>>>> application
>>>>> jmx
>>>>> jpa
>>>>> samples
>>>>>
>>>>> Modules staged at
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
>>>>> are:
>>>>>
>>>>> blueprint
>>>>> jndi
>>>>>
>>>>> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1
>>>>> [ ] +0
>>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe
>>
>
--
Joe
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com>.
Hi Joe
since you already have the env, could you try change line 92 of
BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest
MavenArtifactProvisionOption mapo =
CoreOptions.mavenBundle().groupId("org.apache.aries.blueprint").artifactId("org.apache.aries.blueprint.sample").version(
"0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT");
to
MavenArtifactProvisionOption mapo =
mavenBundleInTest("org.apache.aries.blueprint",
"org.apache.aries.blueprint.sample");
I hope that would resolve the prob
Thanks
Lin
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I found another problem while trying to build from the source
> archives. I get a test failure from the blueprint itests - it seems there
> is still a snapshot reference for the tests. This wasn't a problem the
> earlier when I built from the svn tag because I hadn't cleaned out my repo
> so it was able to resolve the reference. However, while building from the
> source archive I decided I should clean my local repo first and it uncovered
> this problem.
>
> It seems that one of the Blueprint tests still has a SNAPSHOT reference:
>
> blueprint-itests/src/test/java/org/apache/aries/blueprint/itests/BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest.java:
>
> Here's the failure:
>
> Test set:
> org.apache.aries.blueprint.itests.BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 4.231 sec
> <<< FAILURE!
> test
> [equinox/3.5.1](org.apache.aries.blueprint.itests.BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest)
> Time elapsed: 4.185 sec <<< ERROR!
> java.lang.RuntimeException: URL
> [mvn:org.apache.aries.blueprint/org.apache.aries.blueprint.sample/0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT]
> could not be resolved.
> at
> org.ops4j.pax.url.mvn.internal.Connection.getInputStream(Connection.java:195)
> at java.net.URL.openStream(URL.java:1010)
> at
> org.apache.aries.blueprint.itests.BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest.test(BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest.java:94)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
> at
> org.ops4j.pax.exam.junit.extender.impl.internal.CallableTestMethodImpl.injectContextAndInvoke(CallableTestMethodImpl.java:134)
> at
> org.ops4j.pax.exam.junit.extender.impl.internal.CallableTestMethodImpl.call(CallableTestMethodImpl.java:101)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
> at
> org.ops4j.pax.exam.rbc.internal.RemoteBundleContextImpl.remoteCall(RemoteBundleContextImpl.java:80)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
> at
> sun.rmi.server.UnicastServerRef.dispatch(UnicastServerRef.java:305)
> at sun.rmi.transport.Transport$1.run(Transport.java:159)
> at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
> at sun.rmi.transport.Transport.serviceCall(Transport.java:155)
> at
> sun.rmi.transport.tcp.TCPTransport.handleMessages(TCPTransport.java:535)
> at
> sun.rmi.transport.tcp.TCPTransport$ConnectionHandler.run0(TCPTransport.java:790)
> at
> sun.rmi.transport.tcp.TCPTransport$ConnectionHandler.run(TCPTransport.java:649)
> at
> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886)
> at
> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:908)
> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637)
>
>
>
> On 4/14/10 2:26 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>> On 4/14/10 12:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> A few general notes to the community about Apache releases, since this
>>> is the first release. Fundamentally, release notes apply to source
>>> code. Although the svn tag is typically what you think about for a
>>> "release". The actual release, from an ASF perspective, is the source
>>> archive prepared by the release manager. Quite complicated in this
>>> case, since there are so many release archives (e.g.
>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/org/apache/aries/blueprint/blueprint/0.1-incubating/blueprint-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip
>>> )
>>
>> Good point. I reviewed the tag but didn't look in detail at these
>> archives. Looking a bit more closely I see the following:
>>
>> - Instead of just parent there are 3 source "parent" archives: parent,
>> default-parent, and java5-parent. Was that by design?
>> - I don't see a samples source archive anywhere.
>>
>> Based upon the missing samples archive, Kevan's license concerns, and
>> the missing samples archive I have to change my vote to "-1".
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> Actally building all of these projects is a pain in the rump...
>>>
>>> BTW, I sometimes diff the source "release" archive against the svn
>>> tag. Note that several of the release archives contain a DEPENDENCY
>>> file that isn't in svn. I don't see an issue releasing with the
>>> DEPENDENCY file, just pointing out that there can be differences...
>>>
>>> I've sampled the signature/checksums -- they look good. RAT output
>>> looks good. Build is painful, but worked.
>>>
>>> I see a few issues with the LICENSE files, however:
>>>
>>> 1) jpa-0.1-incubating includes two dual-licensed files
>>> (persistence-xsd.rsrc and persistence_2_0-xsd.rsrc). The LICENSE in
>>> the jar file properly reflects this. However, the files are also in
>>> the source. So, they also need to be included in the source LICENSE file
>>> 2) Since Apache will not redistribute these files under GPL, we must
>>> explicitly choose the license we are applying to these files. As the
>>> license explains in these two files by including the following:
>>> "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this distribution
>>> under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
>>> 3) org.apache.aries.transaction.manager-0.1-incubating.jar contains
>>> Geronimo and HOWL class files. However, the jar file does not properly
>>> reflect this in the LICENSE/NOTICE files. Geronimo should be fine, I
>>> think the Geronimo transaction notice file only refers to the geronimo
>>> project. However, the HOWL license needs to be included in the LICENSE
>>> file.
>>>
>>> Base on the above, I'm -1.
>>>
>>> I didn't see any other issues...
>>>
>>> --kevan
>>>
>>> On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
>>>> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
>>>> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>>>>
>>>> Modules staged at
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
>>>> are:
>>>>
>>>> parent
>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>> testsupport
>>>> util
>>>> transaction
>>>> web
>>>> application
>>>> jmx
>>>> jpa
>>>> samples
>>>>
>>>> Modules staged at
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
>>>> are:
>>>>
>>>> blueprint
>>>> jndi
>>>>
>>>> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>>>>
>>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1
>>>> [ ] +0
>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Joe
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>.
I think I found another problem while trying to build from the source
archives. I get a test failure from the blueprint itests - it seems
there is still a snapshot reference for the tests. This wasn't a
problem the earlier when I built from the svn tag because I hadn't
cleaned out my repo so it was able to resolve the reference. However,
while building from the source archive I decided I should clean my local
repo first and it uncovered this problem.
It seems that one of the Blueprint tests still has a SNAPSHOT reference:
blueprint-itests/src/test/java/org/apache/aries/blueprint/itests/BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest.java:
Here's the failure:
Test set:
org.apache.aries.blueprint.itests.BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 4.231
sec <<< FAILURE!
test
[equinox/3.5.1](org.apache.aries.blueprint.itests.BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest)
Time elapsed: 4.185 sec <<< ERROR!
java.lang.RuntimeException: URL
[mvn:org.apache.aries.blueprint/org.apache.aries.blueprint.sample/0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT]
could not be resolved.
at
org.ops4j.pax.url.mvn.internal.Connection.getInputStream(Connection.java:195)
at java.net.URL.openStream(URL.java:1010)
at
org.apache.aries.blueprint.itests.BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest.test(BlueprintContainerBTCustomizerTest.java:94)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
at
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
at
org.ops4j.pax.exam.junit.extender.impl.internal.CallableTestMethodImpl.injectContextAndInvoke(CallableTestMethodImpl.java:134)
at
org.ops4j.pax.exam.junit.extender.impl.internal.CallableTestMethodImpl.call(CallableTestMethodImpl.java:101)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
at
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
at
org.ops4j.pax.exam.rbc.internal.RemoteBundleContextImpl.remoteCall(RemoteBundleContextImpl.java:80)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
at
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
at sun.rmi.server.UnicastServerRef.dispatch(UnicastServerRef.java:305)
at sun.rmi.transport.Transport$1.run(Transport.java:159)
at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
at sun.rmi.transport.Transport.serviceCall(Transport.java:155)
at sun.rmi.transport.tcp.TCPTransport.handleMessages(TCPTransport.java:535)
at
sun.rmi.transport.tcp.TCPTransport$ConnectionHandler.run0(TCPTransport.java:790)
at
sun.rmi.transport.tcp.TCPTransport$ConnectionHandler.run(TCPTransport.java:649)
at
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886)
at
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:908)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637)
On 4/14/10 2:26 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> On 4/14/10 12:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> A few general notes to the community about Apache releases, since this
>> is the first release. Fundamentally, release notes apply to source
>> code. Although the svn tag is typically what you think about for a
>> "release". The actual release, from an ASF perspective, is the source
>> archive prepared by the release manager. Quite complicated in this
>> case, since there are so many release archives (e.g.
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/org/apache/aries/blueprint/blueprint/0.1-incubating/blueprint-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip
>> )
>
> Good point. I reviewed the tag but didn't look in detail at these
> archives. Looking a bit more closely I see the following:
>
> - Instead of just parent there are 3 source "parent" archives: parent,
> default-parent, and java5-parent. Was that by design?
> - I don't see a samples source archive anywhere.
>
> Based upon the missing samples archive, Kevan's license concerns, and
> the missing samples archive I have to change my vote to "-1".
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> Actally building all of these projects is a pain in the rump...
>>
>> BTW, I sometimes diff the source "release" archive against the svn
>> tag. Note that several of the release archives contain a DEPENDENCY
>> file that isn't in svn. I don't see an issue releasing with the
>> DEPENDENCY file, just pointing out that there can be differences...
>>
>> I've sampled the signature/checksums -- they look good. RAT output
>> looks good. Build is painful, but worked.
>>
>> I see a few issues with the LICENSE files, however:
>>
>> 1) jpa-0.1-incubating includes two dual-licensed files
>> (persistence-xsd.rsrc and persistence_2_0-xsd.rsrc). The LICENSE in
>> the jar file properly reflects this. However, the files are also in
>> the source. So, they also need to be included in the source LICENSE file
>> 2) Since Apache will not redistribute these files under GPL, we must
>> explicitly choose the license we are applying to these files. As the
>> license explains in these two files by including the following:
>> "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this distribution
>> under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
>> 3) org.apache.aries.transaction.manager-0.1-incubating.jar contains
>> Geronimo and HOWL class files. However, the jar file does not properly
>> reflect this in the LICENSE/NOTICE files. Geronimo should be fine, I
>> think the Geronimo transaction notice file only refers to the geronimo
>> project. However, the HOWL license needs to be included in the LICENSE
>> file.
>>
>> Base on the above, I'm -1.
>>
>> I didn't see any other issues...
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>> On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
>>> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
>>> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>>>
>>> Modules staged at
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
>>> are:
>>>
>>> parent
>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>> testsupport
>>> util
>>> transaction
>>> web
>>> application
>>> jmx
>>> jpa
>>> samples
>>>
>>> Modules staged at
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
>>> are:
>>>
>>> blueprint
>>> jndi
>>>
>>> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1
>>> [ ] +0
>>> [ ] -1
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>
>
--
Joe
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org>.
On 17 April 2010 01:00, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I looked at the jpa stuff for a minute and found a couple egregious errors I fixed in rev 935098, ARIES-287. IMO this needs to get into the next RC.
Thanks. After RC1 trunk didn't build, so I moved trunk to
0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT and created a branch to handle RC2. I'll merge
r935098 into that branch.
>
> BTW did the original vote get cancelled due to kevan's -1 (it should have been if not, here's my supporting -1 if its needed)? Usually its a good idea to send out a email on the thread explicitly cancelling it.
Agreed. I hereby cancel this vote.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 2:42 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/10 12:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>> A few general notes to the community about Apache releases, since this is the first release. Fundamentally, release notes apply to source code. Although the svn tag is typically what you think about for a "release". The actual release, from an ASF perspective, is the source archive prepared by the release manager. Quite complicated in this case, since there are so many release archives (e.g. https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/org/apache/aries/blueprint/blueprint/0.1-incubating/blueprint-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip )
>>>
>>> Good point. I reviewed the tag but didn't look in detail at these archives. Looking a bit more closely I see the following:
>>>
>>> - Instead of just parent there are 3 source "parent" archives: parent, default-parent, and java5-parent. Was that by design?
>> yes
>>
>> david jencks
>>
>>> - I don't see a samples source archive anywhere.
>>>
>>> Based upon the missing samples archive, Kevan's license concerns, and the missing samples archive I have to change my vote to "-1".
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actally building all of these projects is a pain in the rump...
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I sometimes diff the source "release" archive against the svn tag. Note that several of the release archives contain a DEPENDENCY file that isn't in svn. I don't see an issue releasing with the DEPENDENCY file, just pointing out that there can be differences...
>>>>
>>>> I've sampled the signature/checksums -- they look good. RAT output looks good. Build is painful, but worked.
>>>>
>>>> I see a few issues with the LICENSE files, however:
>>>>
>>>> 1) jpa-0.1-incubating includes two dual-licensed files (persistence-xsd.rsrc and persistence_2_0-xsd.rsrc). The LICENSE in the jar file properly reflects this. However, the files are also in the source. So, they also need to be included in the source LICENSE file
>>>> 2) Since Apache will not redistribute these files under GPL, we must explicitly choose the license we are applying to these files. As the license explains in these two files by including the following: "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
>>>> 3) org.apache.aries.transaction.manager-0.1-incubating.jar contains Geronimo and HOWL class files. However, the jar file does not properly reflect this in the LICENSE/NOTICE files. Geronimo should be fine, I think the Geronimo transaction notice file only refers to the geronimo project. However, the HOWL license needs to be included in the LICENSE file.
>>>>
>>>> Base on the above, I'm -1.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't see any other issues...
>>>>
>>>> --kevan
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
>>>>> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
>>>>> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modules staged at
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
>>>>> are:
>>>>>
>>>>> parent
>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>> testsupport
>>>>> util
>>>>> transaction
>>>>> web
>>>>> application
>>>>> jmx
>>>>> jpa
>>>>> samples
>>>>>
>>>>> Modules staged at
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
>>>>> are:
>>>>>
>>>>> blueprint
>>>>> jndi
>>>>>
>>>>> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1
>>>>> [ ] +0
>>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joe
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I looked at the jpa stuff for a minute and found a couple egregious errors I fixed in rev 935098, ARIES-287. IMO this needs to get into the next RC.
BTW did the original vote get cancelled due to kevan's -1 (it should have been if not, here's my supporting -1 if its needed)? Usually its a good idea to send out a email on the thread explicitly cancelling it.
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 14, 2010, at 2:42 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/10 12:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>> A few general notes to the community about Apache releases, since this is the first release. Fundamentally, release notes apply to source code. Although the svn tag is typically what you think about for a "release". The actual release, from an ASF perspective, is the source archive prepared by the release manager. Quite complicated in this case, since there are so many release archives (e.g. https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/org/apache/aries/blueprint/blueprint/0.1-incubating/blueprint-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip )
>>
>> Good point. I reviewed the tag but didn't look in detail at these archives. Looking a bit more closely I see the following:
>>
>> - Instead of just parent there are 3 source "parent" archives: parent, default-parent, and java5-parent. Was that by design?
> yes
>
> david jencks
>
>> - I don't see a samples source archive anywhere.
>>
>> Based upon the missing samples archive, Kevan's license concerns, and the missing samples archive I have to change my vote to "-1".
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> Actally building all of these projects is a pain in the rump...
>>>
>>> BTW, I sometimes diff the source "release" archive against the svn tag. Note that several of the release archives contain a DEPENDENCY file that isn't in svn. I don't see an issue releasing with the DEPENDENCY file, just pointing out that there can be differences...
>>>
>>> I've sampled the signature/checksums -- they look good. RAT output looks good. Build is painful, but worked.
>>>
>>> I see a few issues with the LICENSE files, however:
>>>
>>> 1) jpa-0.1-incubating includes two dual-licensed files (persistence-xsd.rsrc and persistence_2_0-xsd.rsrc). The LICENSE in the jar file properly reflects this. However, the files are also in the source. So, they also need to be included in the source LICENSE file
>>> 2) Since Apache will not redistribute these files under GPL, we must explicitly choose the license we are applying to these files. As the license explains in these two files by including the following: "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
>>> 3) org.apache.aries.transaction.manager-0.1-incubating.jar contains Geronimo and HOWL class files. However, the jar file does not properly reflect this in the LICENSE/NOTICE files. Geronimo should be fine, I think the Geronimo transaction notice file only refers to the geronimo project. However, the HOWL license needs to be included in the LICENSE file.
>>>
>>> Base on the above, I'm -1.
>>>
>>> I didn't see any other issues...
>>>
>>> --kevan
>>>
>>> On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
>>>> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
>>>> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>>>>
>>>> Modules staged at
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
>>>> are:
>>>>
>>>> parent
>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>> testsupport
>>>> util
>>>> transaction
>>>> web
>>>> application
>>>> jmx
>>>> jpa
>>>> samples
>>>>
>>>> Modules staged at
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
>>>> are:
>>>>
>>>> blueprint
>>>> jndi
>>>>
>>>> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>>>>
>>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1
>>>> [ ] +0
>>>> [ ] -1
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> On 4/14/10 12:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> A few general notes to the community about Apache releases, since this is the first release. Fundamentally, release notes apply to source code. Although the svn tag is typically what you think about for a "release". The actual release, from an ASF perspective, is the source archive prepared by the release manager. Quite complicated in this case, since there are so many release archives (e.g. https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/org/apache/aries/blueprint/blueprint/0.1-incubating/blueprint-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip )
>
> Good point. I reviewed the tag but didn't look in detail at these archives. Looking a bit more closely I see the following:
>
> - Instead of just parent there are 3 source "parent" archives: parent, default-parent, and java5-parent. Was that by design?
yes
david jencks
> - I don't see a samples source archive anywhere.
>
> Based upon the missing samples archive, Kevan's license concerns, and the missing samples archive I have to change my vote to "-1".
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> Actally building all of these projects is a pain in the rump...
>>
>> BTW, I sometimes diff the source "release" archive against the svn tag. Note that several of the release archives contain a DEPENDENCY file that isn't in svn. I don't see an issue releasing with the DEPENDENCY file, just pointing out that there can be differences...
>>
>> I've sampled the signature/checksums -- they look good. RAT output looks good. Build is painful, but worked.
>>
>> I see a few issues with the LICENSE files, however:
>>
>> 1) jpa-0.1-incubating includes two dual-licensed files (persistence-xsd.rsrc and persistence_2_0-xsd.rsrc). The LICENSE in the jar file properly reflects this. However, the files are also in the source. So, they also need to be included in the source LICENSE file
>> 2) Since Apache will not redistribute these files under GPL, we must explicitly choose the license we are applying to these files. As the license explains in these two files by including the following: "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
>> 3) org.apache.aries.transaction.manager-0.1-incubating.jar contains Geronimo and HOWL class files. However, the jar file does not properly reflect this in the LICENSE/NOTICE files. Geronimo should be fine, I think the Geronimo transaction notice file only refers to the geronimo project. However, the HOWL license needs to be included in the LICENSE file.
>>
>> Base on the above, I'm -1.
>>
>> I didn't see any other issues...
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>> On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
>>> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
>>> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>>>
>>> Modules staged at
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
>>> are:
>>>
>>> parent
>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>> testsupport
>>> util
>>> transaction
>>> web
>>> application
>>> jmx
>>> jpa
>>> samples
>>>
>>> Modules staged at
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
>>> are:
>>>
>>> blueprint
>>> jndi
>>>
>>> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1
>>> [ ] +0
>>> [ ] -1
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Joe
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 4/14/10 12:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> A few general notes to the community about Apache releases, since this is the first release. Fundamentally, release notes apply to source code. Although the svn tag is typically what you think about for a "release". The actual release, from an ASF perspective, is the source archive prepared by the release manager. Quite complicated in this case, since there are so many release archives (e.g. https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/org/apache/aries/blueprint/blueprint/0.1-incubating/blueprint-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip )
Good point. I reviewed the tag but didn't look in detail at these
archives. Looking a bit more closely I see the following:
- Instead of just parent there are 3 source "parent" archives: parent,
default-parent, and java5-parent. Was that by design?
- I don't see a samples source archive anywhere.
Based upon the missing samples archive, Kevan's license concerns, and
the missing samples archive I have to change my vote to "-1".
Joe
Actally building all of these projects is a pain in the rump...
>
> BTW, I sometimes diff the source "release" archive against the svn tag. Note that several of the release archives contain a DEPENDENCY file that isn't in svn. I don't see an issue releasing with the DEPENDENCY file, just pointing out that there can be differences...
>
> I've sampled the signature/checksums -- they look good. RAT output looks good. Build is painful, but worked.
>
> I see a few issues with the LICENSE files, however:
>
> 1) jpa-0.1-incubating includes two dual-licensed files (persistence-xsd.rsrc and persistence_2_0-xsd.rsrc). The LICENSE in the jar file properly reflects this. However, the files are also in the source. So, they also need to be included in the source LICENSE file
> 2) Since Apache will not redistribute these files under GPL, we must explicitly choose the license we are applying to these files. As the license explains in these two files by including the following: "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
> 3) org.apache.aries.transaction.manager-0.1-incubating.jar contains Geronimo and HOWL class files. However, the jar file does not properly reflect this in the LICENSE/NOTICE files. Geronimo should be fine, I think the Geronimo transaction notice file only refers to the geronimo project. However, the HOWL license needs to be included in the LICENSE file.
>
> Base on the above, I'm -1.
>
> I didn't see any other issues...
>
> --kevan
>
> On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>
>> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
>> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
>> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>>
>> Modules staged at
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
>> are:
>>
>> parent
>> eba-maven-plugin
>> testsupport
>> util
>> transaction
>> web
>> application
>> jmx
>> jpa
>> samples
>>
>> Modules staged at
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
>> are:
>>
>> blueprint
>> jndi
>>
>> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>>
>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jeremy
>
>
--
Joe
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
A few general notes to the community about Apache releases, since this is the first release. Fundamentally, release notes apply to source code. Although the svn tag is typically what you think about for a "release". The actual release, from an ASF perspective, is the source archive prepared by the release manager. Quite complicated in this case, since there are so many release archives (e.g. https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/org/apache/aries/blueprint/blueprint/0.1-incubating/blueprint-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip ) Actally building all of these projects is a pain in the rump...
BTW, I sometimes diff the source "release" archive against the svn tag. Note that several of the release archives contain a DEPENDENCY file that isn't in svn. I don't see an issue releasing with the DEPENDENCY file, just pointing out that there can be differences...
I've sampled the signature/checksums -- they look good. RAT output looks good. Build is painful, but worked.
I see a few issues with the LICENSE files, however:
1) jpa-0.1-incubating includes two dual-licensed files (persistence-xsd.rsrc and persistence_2_0-xsd.rsrc). The LICENSE in the jar file properly reflects this. However, the files are also in the source. So, they also need to be included in the source LICENSE file
2) Since Apache will not redistribute these files under GPL, we must explicitly choose the license we are applying to these files. As the license explains in these two files by including the following: "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
3) org.apache.aries.transaction.manager-0.1-incubating.jar contains Geronimo and HOWL class files. However, the jar file does not properly reflect this in the LICENSE/NOTICE files. Geronimo should be fine, I think the Geronimo transaction notice file only refers to the geronimo project. However, the HOWL license needs to be included in the LICENSE file.
Base on the above, I'm -1.
I didn't see any other issues...
--kevan
On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>
> Modules staged at
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
> are:
>
> parent
> eba-maven-plugin
> testsupport
> util
> transaction
> web
> application
> jmx
> jpa
> samples
>
> Modules staged at
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
> are:
>
> blueprint
> jndi
>
> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>
> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Mark Nuttall <mn...@apache.org>.
+1 once Kevan's license concerns are met
-- Mark
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org>.
+1
On 12 April 2010 22:03, David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1!
>
> David
>
> On 10 April 2010 01:42, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
>> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
>> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>>
>> Modules staged at
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
>> are:
>>
>> parent
>> eba-maven-plugin
>> testsupport
>> util
>> transaction
>> web
>> application
>> jmx
>> jpa
>> samples
>>
>> Modules staged at
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
>> are:
>>
>> blueprint
>> jndi
>>
>> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>>
>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jeremy
>>
>
--
Alasdair Nottingham
not@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
+1!
David
On 10 April 2010 01:42, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>
> Modules staged at
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
> are:
>
> parent
> eba-maven-plugin
> testsupport
> util
> transaction
> web
> application
> jmx
> jpa
> samples
>
> Modules staged at
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
> are:
>
> blueprint
> jndi
>
> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>
> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>.
I haven't seen any problems with the artifacts so I'm +1.
I built from the tags and ran 2 of our samples (AriesTrader and Blog) -
and both of those worked well.
I also did a rat scan and did not see anything obviously wrong.
I did notice some old README files that I hadn't deleted in AriesTrader
... but that is no reason to stop the vote.
I also have some concerns with the release process and the effects on
trunk. I hope that we can figure out some ways to make it easier for
future releases and eliminate some of the manual updates that Jeremy had
to make. If we continue to perform the release from trunk we will also
have to more clearly define the process - such as what is and is not
allowed to happen in trunk during the vote.
Joe
On 4/9/10 8:42 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>
> Modules staged at
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
> are:
>
> parent
> eba-maven-plugin
> testsupport
> util
> transaction
> web
> application
> jmx
> jpa
> samples
>
> Modules staged at
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
> are:
>
> blueprint
> jndi
>
> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>
> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
>
--
Joe
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com>.
+1
Lin
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>
> Modules staged at
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
> are:
>
> parent
> eba-maven-plugin
> testsupport
> util
> transaction
> web
> application
> jmx
> jpa
> samples
>
> Modules staged at
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
> are:
>
> blueprint
> jndi
>
> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>
> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 02:42, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The
> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos.
>
> Modules staged at
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/
> are:
>
> parent
> eba-maven-plugin
> testsupport
> util
> transaction
> web
> application
> jmx
> jpa
> samples
>
> Modules staged at
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/
> are:
>
> blueprint
> jndi
>
> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>
> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com