You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> on 2008/10/02 18:49:30 UTC
Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
We're rappidly approaching time to do the 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 releases.
It's been about 10 week since 2.0.9 and 7 weeks since 2.1.2. We have
33 issues resolved for 2.0.9, and 38 for 2.1.3. Thus, we probably
should consider doing some releases shortly.
HOWEVER, my hard drive crashed this week and part of recovering from
that, I kind of realized that someone else really should try doing a
release to make sure the knowledge is spread out a bit and isn't all
bottled up in my head. Thus, I'd like to ask for volunteers for doing
the releases. If no one jumps up, I'll be happy to do it, but it would
definitely be good to get someone else involved.
Requirements:
1) The release process is MUCH easier and more reliable on a Linux or OSX
box. Things like gpg and ssh/scp "just work". If someone want to try
Windows, I'm not sure how much I can help.
2) gpg installed and a gpg key generated and available in the public key
servers. Ideally, it would be signed by other apache folks, but that's
not a requirment. Anyone near Boston, we could meet for lunch and sign
keys if you want.
3) Time - before building the release, you need a few hours to review
release notes, notice/license files, rat reports, etc.... Post
release, there is syncing to the maven repo, updating confluence, some
JIRA admin things, etc.... Basically, a few hours ahead of the build,
an hour to build, three days for the vote, and a few hours afterword.
Anyway, if anyone is interested, speak up. I'd be happy to look over
your virtual shoulder while you do the stuff to make sure it's all done
right. Not a problem.
Thanks!
--
J. Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Christian,
Can you list the cases in which the patches could change the old JMS
transport behavior?
Maybe we should add some wiki page for the upgrading of user.
Regards,
Willem
Christian Schneider wrote:
> Hi Willem,
>
> if you are allright with it then that is ok. I am sure there are some
> cases in which the implementations behave differently. But they are
> probably not very common or important.
>
> Greetings
>
> Christian
>
> Willem Jiang schrieb:
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> All your JMS refactoring patches are in the 2.0.x branch and the test
>> result
>> looks good :)
>>
>> Willem
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
Hi Willem,
if you are allright with it then that is ok. I am sure there are some
cases in which the implementations behave differently. But they are
probably not very common or important.
Greetings
Christian
Willem Jiang schrieb:
> Hi Christian,
>
> All your JMS refactoring patches are in the 2.0.x branch and the test result
> looks good :)
>
> Willem
>
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Christian,
All your JMS refactoring patches are in the 2.0.x branch and the test result
looks good :)
Willem
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> Most of your JMS patches were merged into the 2.0.x branch , and there are
> not much differences between the CXF 2.0.x JMS module and CXF 2.1.x JMS
> module. I think it is easy to merge your latest change into the CXF 2.0.x.
> Don't worry , I will keep on an eye on it ;)
>
> Willem
>
> Christian Schneider wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> I have got a question about the new releases. Should we include the
>> changes in the JMS transport in one of them?
>> Ron Gavlin asked to include the changes in the 2.0.x branch on the jira
>> issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1832.
>> I could imagine to include them into 2.1.3 but I would rather leave them
>> out of 2.0.9. What do you think? Are there some general guidelines how to
>> handle this?
>>
>> Is there already a time scale? I would like to include the upcoming new
>> JMS configuration style in the release but this will take at least another
>> one or two weeks.
>>
>> Greetings
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> Daniel Kulp schrieb:
>>
>>> We're rappidly approaching time to do the 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 releases.
>>> It's been about 10 week since 2.0.9 and 7 weeks since 2.1.2. We have
>>> 33 issues resolved for 2.0.9, and 38 for 2.1.3. Thus, we probably
>>> should consider doing some releases shortly.
>>>
>>> HOWEVER, my hard drive crashed this week and part of recovering from
>>> that, I kind of realized that someone else really should try doing a release
>>> to make sure the knowledge is spread out a bit and isn't all bottled up in
>>> my head. Thus, I'd like to ask for volunteers for doing the releases.
>>> If no one jumps up, I'll be happy to do it, but it would definitely be good
>>> to get someone else involved.
>>>
>>> Requirements:
>>> 1) The release process is MUCH easier and more reliable on a Linux or OSX
>>> box. Things like gpg and ssh/scp "just work". If someone want to try
>>> Windows, I'm not sure how much I can help. 2) gpg installed and a gpg key
>>> generated and available in the public key servers. Ideally, it would be
>>> signed by other apache folks, but that's not a requirment. Anyone near
>>> Boston, we could meet for lunch and sign keys if you want.
>>>
>>> 3) Time - before building the release, you need a few hours to review
>>> release notes, notice/license files, rat reports, etc.... Post release,
>>> there is syncing to the maven repo, updating confluence, some JIRA admin
>>> things, etc.... Basically, a few hours ahead of the build, an hour to
>>> build, three days for the vote, and a few hours afterword. Anyway, if anyone
>>> is interested, speak up. I'd be happy to look over your virtual shoulder
>>> while you do the stuff to make sure it's all done right. Not a problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Christian,
Most of your JMS patches were merged into the 2.0.x branch , and there
are not much differences between the CXF 2.0.x JMS module and CXF 2.1.x
JMS module. I think it is easy to merge your latest change into the CXF
2.0.x.
Don't worry , I will keep on an eye on it ;)
Willem
Christian Schneider wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I have got a question about the new releases. Should we include the
> changes in the JMS transport in one of them?
> Ron Gavlin asked to include the changes in the 2.0.x branch on the
> jira issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1832.
> I could imagine to include them into 2.1.3 but I would rather leave
> them out of 2.0.9. What do you think? Are there some general
> guidelines how to handle this?
>
> Is there already a time scale? I would like to include the upcoming
> new JMS configuration style in the release but this will take at least
> another one or two weeks.
>
> Greetings
>
> Christian
>
>
> Daniel Kulp schrieb:
>> We're rappidly approaching time to do the 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 releases.
>> It's been about 10 week since 2.0.9 and 7 weeks since 2.1.2. We
>> have 33 issues resolved for 2.0.9, and 38 for 2.1.3. Thus, we
>> probably should consider doing some releases shortly.
>>
>> HOWEVER, my hard drive crashed this week and part of recovering from
>> that, I kind of realized that someone else really should try doing a
>> release to make sure the knowledge is spread out a bit and isn't all
>> bottled up in my head. Thus, I'd like to ask for volunteers for
>> doing the releases. If no one jumps up, I'll be happy to do it, but
>> it would definitely be good to get someone else involved.
>>
>> Requirements:
>> 1) The release process is MUCH easier and more reliable on a Linux or
>> OSX box. Things like gpg and ssh/scp "just work". If someone want
>> to try Windows, I'm not sure how much I can help.
>> 2) gpg installed and a gpg key generated and available in the public
>> key servers. Ideally, it would be signed by other apache folks, but
>> that's not a requirment. Anyone near Boston, we could meet for lunch
>> and sign keys if you want.
>>
>> 3) Time - before building the release, you need a few hours to review
>> release notes, notice/license files, rat reports, etc.... Post
>> release, there is syncing to the maven repo, updating confluence,
>> some JIRA admin things, etc.... Basically, a few hours ahead of the
>> build, an hour to build, three days for the vote, and a few hours
>> afterword.
>> Anyway, if anyone is interested, speak up. I'd be happy to look over
>> your virtual shoulder while you do the stuff to make sure it's all
>> done right. Not a problem.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
Hi Dan,
I have got a question about the new releases. Should we include the
changes in the JMS transport in one of them?
Ron Gavlin asked to include the changes in the 2.0.x branch on the jira
issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1832.
I could imagine to include them into 2.1.3 but I would rather leave them
out of 2.0.9. What do you think? Are there some general guidelines how
to handle this?
Is there already a time scale? I would like to include the upcoming new
JMS configuration style in the release but this will take at least
another one or two weeks.
Greetings
Christian
Daniel Kulp schrieb:
> We're rappidly approaching time to do the 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 releases.
> It's been about 10 week since 2.0.9 and 7 weeks since 2.1.2. We have
> 33 issues resolved for 2.0.9, and 38 for 2.1.3. Thus, we probably
> should consider doing some releases shortly.
>
> HOWEVER, my hard drive crashed this week and part of recovering from
> that, I kind of realized that someone else really should try doing a
> release to make sure the knowledge is spread out a bit and isn't all
> bottled up in my head. Thus, I'd like to ask for volunteers for doing
> the releases. If no one jumps up, I'll be happy to do it, but it would
> definitely be good to get someone else involved.
>
> Requirements:
> 1) The release process is MUCH easier and more reliable on a Linux or OSX
> box. Things like gpg and ssh/scp "just work". If someone want to try
> Windows, I'm not sure how much I can help.
>
> 2) gpg installed and a gpg key generated and available in the public key
> servers. Ideally, it would be signed by other apache folks, but that's
> not a requirment. Anyone near Boston, we could meet for lunch and sign
> keys if you want.
>
> 3) Time - before building the release, you need a few hours to review
> release notes, notice/license files, rat reports, etc.... Post
> release, there is syncing to the maven repo, updating confluence, some
> JIRA admin things, etc.... Basically, a few hours ahead of the build,
> an hour to build, three days for the vote, and a few hours afterword.
>
> Anyway, if anyone is interested, speak up. I'd be happy to look over
> your virtual shoulder while you do the stuff to make sure it's all done
> right. Not a problem.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
--
Christian Schneider
---
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Willem,
Any chance you still talk to Bo Lin? Maybe take him out for a beer or
something and do a quick key signing.
Actually, you could do the same with Freeman as well. His key is signed
by Bo which is signed by me and others.
Dan
On Thursday 02 October 2008, Willem Jiang wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I'd like to take charge of this CXF release.
> Since you and me met a year before, I will send you my key for signing
> :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Willem
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> > We're rappidly approaching time to do the 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 releases.
> > It's been about 10 week since 2.0.9 and 7 weeks since 2.1.2. We
> > have 33 issues resolved for 2.0.9, and 38 for 2.1.3. Thus, we
> > probably should consider doing some releases shortly.
> >
> > HOWEVER, my hard drive crashed this week and part of recovering from
> > that, I kind of realized that someone else really should try doing a
> > release to make sure the knowledge is spread out a bit and isn't all
> > bottled up in my head. Thus, I'd like to ask for volunteers for
> > doing the releases. If no one jumps up, I'll be happy to do it,
> > but it would definitely be good to get someone else involved.
> >
> > Requirements:
> > 1) The release process is MUCH easier and more reliable on a Linux
> > or OSX box. Things like gpg and ssh/scp "just work". If someone
> > want to try Windows, I'm not sure how much I can help.
> >
> > 2) gpg installed and a gpg key generated and available in the public
> > key servers. Ideally, it would be signed by other apache folks,
> > but that's not a requirment. Anyone near Boston, we could meet for
> > lunch and sign keys if you want.
> >
> > 3) Time - before building the release, you need a few hours to
> > review release notes, notice/license files, rat reports, etc....
> > Post release, there is syncing to the maven repo, updating
> > confluence, some JIRA admin things, etc.... Basically, a few hours
> > ahead of the build, an hour to build, three days for the vote, and a
> > few hours afterword.
> >
> > Anyway, if anyone is interested, speak up. I'd be happy to look
> > over your virtual shoulder while you do the stuff to make sure it's
> > all done right. Not a problem.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > J. Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org
> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
--
J. Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Fred Dushin <fr...@dushin.net>.
You need a secure means of exchanging keys. In general email is not a
trustworthy mechanism, as it is clearly tamperable. A phone call is
marginally better. Though given the current news about skype, I'd
think twice about that, too ;)
Of course, you might even say face-to-face is not secure, but I think
we all agree that Descartes convinced us sufficiently (the invalidity
of his logic, notwithstanding) that we ain't brains in vats!
Of course, you could also reason, "Who cares?", in which case this
whole signing business is just silly.
-Fred
On Oct 2, 2008, at 11:51 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
> Since you and me met a year before, I will send you my key for
> signing :)
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dan,
I just deployed a new snapshot of CXF 2.0.9 according the wiki page for
testing my box's ssh and scp setting.
Every thing is working, I am ready for cutting CXF 2.0.9 this week :)
Willem
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Willem,
>
> Thanks for volunteering to do this. That's great.
>
> I think it would be good to do 2.0.9 late this week and probably 2.1.3
> middle of next week. (need to do 2.0.x first due to an "issue" with
> the maven stage plugin which will update the "latest" tag in the
> metadata with 2.0.9 so 2.0.9 would get picked up instead of 2.1.2.
> Thus, we would want 2.1.3 shortly thereafter to restore a 2.1.x version
> as latest).
>
> I have a couple of fixes I'm going to try and get in to 2.1.x this week.
> We also should update to bouncycastle 140 and xalan 2.7.1 for both 2.1.3
> and 2.0.9. With those versions, we can actually distribute
> bouncycastle and thus ws-security can work "out of the box" and not
> require downloading additional jars.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Thursday 02 October 2008, Willem Jiang wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> I'd like to take charge of this CXF release.
>> Since you and me met a year before, I will send you my key for signing
>> :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Willem
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> We're rappidly approaching time to do the 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 releases.
>>> It's been about 10 week since 2.0.9 and 7 weeks since 2.1.2. We
>>> have 33 issues resolved for 2.0.9, and 38 for 2.1.3. Thus, we
>>> probably should consider doing some releases shortly.
>>>
>>> HOWEVER, my hard drive crashed this week and part of recovering from
>>> that, I kind of realized that someone else really should try doing a
>>> release to make sure the knowledge is spread out a bit and isn't all
>>> bottled up in my head. Thus, I'd like to ask for volunteers for
>>> doing the releases. If no one jumps up, I'll be happy to do it,
>>> but it would definitely be good to get someone else involved.
>>>
>>> Requirements:
>>> 1) The release process is MUCH easier and more reliable on a Linux
>>> or OSX box. Things like gpg and ssh/scp "just work". If someone
>>> want to try Windows, I'm not sure how much I can help.
>>>
>>> 2) gpg installed and a gpg key generated and available in the public
>>> key servers. Ideally, it would be signed by other apache folks,
>>> but that's not a requirment. Anyone near Boston, we could meet for
>>> lunch and sign keys if you want.
>>>
>>> 3) Time - before building the release, you need a few hours to
>>> review release notes, notice/license files, rat reports, etc....
>>> Post release, there is syncing to the maven repo, updating
>>> confluence, some JIRA admin things, etc.... Basically, a few hours
>>> ahead of the build, an hour to build, three days for the vote, and a
>>> few hours afterword.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if anyone is interested, speak up. I'd be happy to look
>>> over your virtual shoulder while you do the stuff to make sure it's
>>> all done right. Not a problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> --
>>> J. Daniel Kulp
>>> dkulp@apache.org
>>> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>>>
>
>
>
>
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
I can't find the serializer.jar in 2.0.9 SNAPSHOT, but I found it in
2.1.3 SNAPSHOT.
After went through the commit log , I found there is one different between
rt/ws/security/pom.xml in 2.0.x and 2.1.x ,
the xalan's dependency scope is runtime in 2.0.x, and uses the default compile scope in 2.1.x.
<dependency>
<groupId>xalan</groupId>
<artifactId>xalan</artifactId>
- <version>2.7.0</version>
+ <version>2.7.1</version>
*<scope>runtime</scope>*
<exclusions>
- <exclusion>
- <groupId>xml-apis</groupId>
- <artifactId>xml-apis</artifactId>
- </exclusion>
+ <exclusion>
+ <groupId>xml-apis</groupId>
+ <artifactId>xml-apis</artifactId>
+ </exclusion>
</exclusions>
</dependency>
Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> On Thursday 09 October 2008 10:13:08 am Willem Jiang wrote:
>
>> Does the java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
>> org/apache/xml/serializer/TreeWalker relates to change of updating to
>> using xalan 2.7.1 ?
>>
>
> Yea. Where are you seeing that?
>
> There is a new jar (serializer.jar) in lib that contains that class.
> Basically they split the 2.7.0 jar into two jars, pulling the serializer
> stuff out.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>> Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>>> Willem,
>>>
>>> Thanks for volunteering to do this. That's great.
>>>
>>> I think it would be good to do 2.0.9 late this week and probably 2.1.3
>>> middle of next week. (need to do 2.0.x first due to an "issue" with
>>> the maven stage plugin which will update the "latest" tag in the
>>> metadata with 2.0.9 so 2.0.9 would get picked up instead of 2.1.2.
>>> Thus, we would want 2.1.3 shortly thereafter to restore a 2.1.x version
>>> as latest).
>>>
>>> I have a couple of fixes I'm going to try and get in to 2.1.x this week.
>>> We also should update to bouncycastle 140 and xalan 2.7.1 for both 2.1.3
>>> and 2.0.9. With those versions, we can actually distribute
>>> bouncycastle and thus ws-security can work "out of the box" and not
>>> require downloading additional jars.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> On Thursday 02 October 2008, Willem Jiang wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to take charge of this CXF release.
>>>> Since you and me met a year before, I will send you my key for signing
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Willem
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We're rappidly approaching time to do the 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 releases.
>>>>> It's been about 10 week since 2.0.9 and 7 weeks since 2.1.2. We
>>>>> have 33 issues resolved for 2.0.9, and 38 for 2.1.3. Thus, we
>>>>> probably should consider doing some releases shortly.
>>>>>
>>>>> HOWEVER, my hard drive crashed this week and part of recovering from
>>>>> that, I kind of realized that someone else really should try doing a
>>>>> release to make sure the knowledge is spread out a bit and isn't all
>>>>> bottled up in my head. Thus, I'd like to ask for volunteers for
>>>>> doing the releases. If no one jumps up, I'll be happy to do it,
>>>>> but it would definitely be good to get someone else involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Requirements:
>>>>> 1) The release process is MUCH easier and more reliable on a Linux
>>>>> or OSX box. Things like gpg and ssh/scp "just work". If someone
>>>>> want to try Windows, I'm not sure how much I can help.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) gpg installed and a gpg key generated and available in the public
>>>>> key servers. Ideally, it would be signed by other apache folks,
>>>>> but that's not a requirment. Anyone near Boston, we could meet for
>>>>> lunch and sign keys if you want.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Time - before building the release, you need a few hours to
>>>>> review release notes, notice/license files, rat reports, etc....
>>>>> Post release, there is syncing to the maven repo, updating
>>>>> confluence, some JIRA admin things, etc.... Basically, a few hours
>>>>> ahead of the build, an hour to build, three days for the vote, and a
>>>>> few hours afterword.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, if anyone is interested, speak up. I'd be happy to look
>>>>> over your virtual shoulder while you do the stuff to make sure it's
>>>>> all done right. Not a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> J. Daniel Kulp
>>>>> dkulp@apache.org
>>>>> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>>>>>
>
>
>
>
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Thursday 09 October 2008 10:13:08 am Willem Jiang wrote:
> Does the java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
> org/apache/xml/serializer/TreeWalker relates to change of updating to
> using xalan 2.7.1 ?
Yea. Where are you seeing that?
There is a new jar (serializer.jar) in lib that contains that class.
Basically they split the 2.7.0 jar into two jars, pulling the serializer
stuff out.
Dan
>
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > Willem,
> >
> > Thanks for volunteering to do this. That's great.
> >
> > I think it would be good to do 2.0.9 late this week and probably 2.1.3
> > middle of next week. (need to do 2.0.x first due to an "issue" with
> > the maven stage plugin which will update the "latest" tag in the
> > metadata with 2.0.9 so 2.0.9 would get picked up instead of 2.1.2.
> > Thus, we would want 2.1.3 shortly thereafter to restore a 2.1.x version
> > as latest).
> >
> > I have a couple of fixes I'm going to try and get in to 2.1.x this week.
> > We also should update to bouncycastle 140 and xalan 2.7.1 for both 2.1.3
> > and 2.0.9. With those versions, we can actually distribute
> > bouncycastle and thus ws-security can work "out of the box" and not
> > require downloading additional jars.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Thursday 02 October 2008, Willem Jiang wrote:
> >> Hi Dan,
> >>
> >> I'd like to take charge of this CXF release.
> >> Since you and me met a year before, I will send you my key for signing
> >>
> >> :)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Willem
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> We're rappidly approaching time to do the 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 releases.
> >>> It's been about 10 week since 2.0.9 and 7 weeks since 2.1.2. We
> >>> have 33 issues resolved for 2.0.9, and 38 for 2.1.3. Thus, we
> >>> probably should consider doing some releases shortly.
> >>>
> >>> HOWEVER, my hard drive crashed this week and part of recovering from
> >>> that, I kind of realized that someone else really should try doing a
> >>> release to make sure the knowledge is spread out a bit and isn't all
> >>> bottled up in my head. Thus, I'd like to ask for volunteers for
> >>> doing the releases. If no one jumps up, I'll be happy to do it,
> >>> but it would definitely be good to get someone else involved.
> >>>
> >>> Requirements:
> >>> 1) The release process is MUCH easier and more reliable on a Linux
> >>> or OSX box. Things like gpg and ssh/scp "just work". If someone
> >>> want to try Windows, I'm not sure how much I can help.
> >>>
> >>> 2) gpg installed and a gpg key generated and available in the public
> >>> key servers. Ideally, it would be signed by other apache folks,
> >>> but that's not a requirment. Anyone near Boston, we could meet for
> >>> lunch and sign keys if you want.
> >>>
> >>> 3) Time - before building the release, you need a few hours to
> >>> review release notes, notice/license files, rat reports, etc....
> >>> Post release, there is syncing to the maven repo, updating
> >>> confluence, some JIRA admin things, etc.... Basically, a few hours
> >>> ahead of the build, an hour to build, three days for the vote, and a
> >>> few hours afterword.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, if anyone is interested, speak up. I'd be happy to look
> >>> over your virtual shoulder while you do the stuff to make sure it's
> >>> all done right. Not a problem.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> J. Daniel Kulp
> >>> dkulp@apache.org
> >>> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
Does the java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
org/apache/xml/serializer/TreeWalker relates to change of updating to
using xalan 2.7.1 ?
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Willem,
>
> Thanks for volunteering to do this. That's great.
>
> I think it would be good to do 2.0.9 late this week and probably 2.1.3
> middle of next week. (need to do 2.0.x first due to an "issue" with
> the maven stage plugin which will update the "latest" tag in the
> metadata with 2.0.9 so 2.0.9 would get picked up instead of 2.1.2.
> Thus, we would want 2.1.3 shortly thereafter to restore a 2.1.x version
> as latest).
>
> I have a couple of fixes I'm going to try and get in to 2.1.x this week.
> We also should update to bouncycastle 140 and xalan 2.7.1 for both 2.1.3
> and 2.0.9. With those versions, we can actually distribute
> bouncycastle and thus ws-security can work "out of the box" and not
> require downloading additional jars.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Thursday 02 October 2008, Willem Jiang wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> I'd like to take charge of this CXF release.
>> Since you and me met a year before, I will send you my key for signing
>> :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Willem
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> We're rappidly approaching time to do the 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 releases.
>>> It's been about 10 week since 2.0.9 and 7 weeks since 2.1.2. We
>>> have 33 issues resolved for 2.0.9, and 38 for 2.1.3. Thus, we
>>> probably should consider doing some releases shortly.
>>>
>>> HOWEVER, my hard drive crashed this week and part of recovering from
>>> that, I kind of realized that someone else really should try doing a
>>> release to make sure the knowledge is spread out a bit and isn't all
>>> bottled up in my head. Thus, I'd like to ask for volunteers for
>>> doing the releases. If no one jumps up, I'll be happy to do it,
>>> but it would definitely be good to get someone else involved.
>>>
>>> Requirements:
>>> 1) The release process is MUCH easier and more reliable on a Linux
>>> or OSX box. Things like gpg and ssh/scp "just work". If someone
>>> want to try Windows, I'm not sure how much I can help.
>>>
>>> 2) gpg installed and a gpg key generated and available in the public
>>> key servers. Ideally, it would be signed by other apache folks,
>>> but that's not a requirment. Anyone near Boston, we could meet for
>>> lunch and sign keys if you want.
>>>
>>> 3) Time - before building the release, you need a few hours to
>>> review release notes, notice/license files, rat reports, etc....
>>> Post release, there is syncing to the maven repo, updating
>>> confluence, some JIRA admin things, etc.... Basically, a few hours
>>> ahead of the build, an hour to build, three days for the vote, and a
>>> few hours afterword.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if anyone is interested, speak up. I'd be happy to look
>>> over your virtual shoulder while you do the stuff to make sure it's
>>> all done right. Not a problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> --
>>> J. Daniel Kulp
>>> dkulp@apache.org
>>> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>>>
>
>
>
>
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Willem,
Thanks for volunteering to do this. That's great.
I think it would be good to do 2.0.9 late this week and probably 2.1.3
middle of next week. (need to do 2.0.x first due to an "issue" with
the maven stage plugin which will update the "latest" tag in the
metadata with 2.0.9 so 2.0.9 would get picked up instead of 2.1.2.
Thus, we would want 2.1.3 shortly thereafter to restore a 2.1.x version
as latest).
I have a couple of fixes I'm going to try and get in to 2.1.x this week.
We also should update to bouncycastle 140 and xalan 2.7.1 for both 2.1.3
and 2.0.9. With those versions, we can actually distribute
bouncycastle and thus ws-security can work "out of the box" and not
require downloading additional jars.
Dan
On Thursday 02 October 2008, Willem Jiang wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I'd like to take charge of this CXF release.
> Since you and me met a year before, I will send you my key for signing
> :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Willem
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> > We're rappidly approaching time to do the 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 releases.
> > It's been about 10 week since 2.0.9 and 7 weeks since 2.1.2. We
> > have 33 issues resolved for 2.0.9, and 38 for 2.1.3. Thus, we
> > probably should consider doing some releases shortly.
> >
> > HOWEVER, my hard drive crashed this week and part of recovering from
> > that, I kind of realized that someone else really should try doing a
> > release to make sure the knowledge is spread out a bit and isn't all
> > bottled up in my head. Thus, I'd like to ask for volunteers for
> > doing the releases. If no one jumps up, I'll be happy to do it,
> > but it would definitely be good to get someone else involved.
> >
> > Requirements:
> > 1) The release process is MUCH easier and more reliable on a Linux
> > or OSX box. Things like gpg and ssh/scp "just work". If someone
> > want to try Windows, I'm not sure how much I can help.
> >
> > 2) gpg installed and a gpg key generated and available in the public
> > key servers. Ideally, it would be signed by other apache folks,
> > but that's not a requirment. Anyone near Boston, we could meet for
> > lunch and sign keys if you want.
> >
> > 3) Time - before building the release, you need a few hours to
> > review release notes, notice/license files, rat reports, etc....
> > Post release, there is syncing to the maven repo, updating
> > confluence, some JIRA admin things, etc.... Basically, a few hours
> > ahead of the build, an hour to build, three days for the vote, and a
> > few hours afterword.
> >
> > Anyway, if anyone is interested, speak up. I'd be happy to look
> > over your virtual shoulder while you do the stuff to make sure it's
> > all done right. Not a problem.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > J. Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org
> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
--
J. Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Release manager for 2.1.3 and/or 2.0.9.....
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dan,
I'd like to take charge of this CXF release.
Since you and me met a year before, I will send you my key for signing :)
Cheers,
Willem
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> We're rappidly approaching time to do the 2.0.9 and 2.1.3 releases.
> It's been about 10 week since 2.0.9 and 7 weeks since 2.1.2. We have
> 33 issues resolved for 2.0.9, and 38 for 2.1.3. Thus, we probably
> should consider doing some releases shortly.
>
> HOWEVER, my hard drive crashed this week and part of recovering from
> that, I kind of realized that someone else really should try doing a
> release to make sure the knowledge is spread out a bit and isn't all
> bottled up in my head. Thus, I'd like to ask for volunteers for doing
> the releases. If no one jumps up, I'll be happy to do it, but it would
> definitely be good to get someone else involved.
>
> Requirements:
> 1) The release process is MUCH easier and more reliable on a Linux or OSX
> box. Things like gpg and ssh/scp "just work". If someone want to try
> Windows, I'm not sure how much I can help.
>
> 2) gpg installed and a gpg key generated and available in the public key
> servers. Ideally, it would be signed by other apache folks, but that's
> not a requirment. Anyone near Boston, we could meet for lunch and sign
> keys if you want.
>
> 3) Time - before building the release, you need a few hours to review
> release notes, notice/license files, rat reports, etc.... Post
> release, there is syncing to the maven repo, updating confluence, some
> JIRA admin things, etc.... Basically, a few hours ahead of the build,
> an hour to build, three days for the vote, and a few hours afterword.
>
> Anyway, if anyone is interested, speak up. I'd be happy to look over
> your virtual shoulder while you do the stuff to make sure it's all done
> right. Not a problem.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> J. Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>