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 2011/01/24 18:23:04 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
So far, I've checked the source zips' .md5 .sha1 .asc .asc.md5
.asc.sha1 files. I've run mvn -Prat on the unzipped source and get a
problem for each of the DEPENDENCIES files. I think we hit this in 0.2
and 0.1 and decided to overlook it as they are generated files.
I'm still to check the binaries though, but not today.
Cheers,
Jeremy
On 24 January 2011 13:53, zoe slattery <zo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I've staged a release candidate 00 for the 0.3 release. Please use this
> thread for any discussion. If you check the release please will you say
> exactly what you checked - even if it passes?
>
> Thanks
>
> Zoė
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Agree.
We should merge on 0.3.
Regards
JB
On 01/26/2011 06:12 PM, Timothy Ward wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> ARIES-556 was raised as a critical bug against 0.2 on Monday, and has been fixed in trunk. It would be good to get it into the 0.3 release rather than have a known critical bug in the JPA code. Is there a chance of respinning the JPA component for 0.3?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> From: hughesj@apache.org
>> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:37:42 +0000
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
>> To: dev@aries.apache.org
>>
>> On 24 January 2011 18:34, zoe slattery wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2011 17:23, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So far, I've checked the source zips' .md5 .sha1 .asc .asc.md5
>>>> .asc.sha1 files. I've run mvn -Prat on the unzipped source and get a
>>>> problem for each of the DEPENDENCIES files. I think we hit this in 0.2
>>>> and 0.1 and decided to overlook it as they are generated files.
>>>
>>> Curious - I have just run 'mvn -Prat install' in the release candidate
>>> branch and I _don't_ get a problem with DEPENDENCIES files.
>>> I actually used mvn rat:check when I was checking the release artifacts -
>>> didn't see a problem with DEPENDENCIES there either.
>>>
>>> You are Maven 3? Could that be the difference, I'm running Maven 2.2.1.
>>
>> I seem to remember seeing this with Maven 2.2.1 from before. I think
>> what happens when doing the release is the DEPENDENCIES file is
>> created then the source zip is created and the DEPENDENCIES file is
>> included in that. Moving from Maven 2.2.1 to 3, I don't think RAT has
>> changed.
>>
>> I just tried it with Maven 2.2.1 and get the same result:
>>
>> *****************************************************
>> Files with Apache License headers will be marked AL
>> Binary files (which do not require AL headers) will be marked B
>> Compressed archives will be marked A
>> Notices, licenses etc will be marked N
>> AL default-parent/java5-parent/pom.xml
>> AL default-parent/pom.xml
>> !????? DEPENDENCIES
>> N LICENSE
>> N NOTICE
>> AL pom.xml
>>
>> *****************************************************
>>
>> I don't think it's worth respinning the release for this, as it is a
>> generated file and doesn't have any intellectual property in it.
>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm still to check the binaries though, but not today.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>> On 24 January 2011 13:53, zoe slattery wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>> I've staged a release candidate 00 for the 0.3 release. Please use this
>>>>> thread for any discussion. If you check the release please will you say
>>>>> exactly what you checked - even if it passes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Zoė
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
---------------------------------
HomePage
http://www.nanthrax.net
---------------------------------
Contacts
jbonofre@apache.org
jb@nanthrax.net
---------------------------------
OpenSource
BuildProcess/AutoDeploy
http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net
Apache ServiceMix
http://servicemix.apache.org
-----------------------------------
PGP : 17D4F086
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Awesome,
thanks Zoe.
Regards
JB
On 01/26/2011 06:24 PM, zoe slattery wrote:
> On 26/01/2011 17:12, Timothy Ward wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> ARIES-556 was raised as a critical bug against 0.2 on Monday, and has
>> been fixed in trunk. It would be good to get it into the 0.3 release
>> rather than have a known critical bug in the JPA code. Is there a
>> chance of respinning the JPA component for 0.3?
> Yes :-). I'll merge the changes, respin the JPA component, create an
> RC01 and restart the vote. Thanks,
> Zoe
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>> From: hughesj@apache.org
>>> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:37:42 +0000
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
>>> To: dev@aries.apache.org
>>>
>>> On 24 January 2011 18:34, zoe slattery wrote:
>>>> On 24/01/2011 17:23, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>> So far, I've checked the source zips' .md5 .sha1 .asc .asc.md5
>>>>> .asc.sha1 files. I've run mvn -Prat on the unzipped source and get a
>>>>> problem for each of the DEPENDENCIES files. I think we hit this in 0.2
>>>>> and 0.1 and decided to overlook it as they are generated files.
>>>> Curious - I have just run 'mvn -Prat install' in the release candidate
>>>> branch and I _don't_ get a problem with DEPENDENCIES files.
>>>> I actually used mvn rat:check when I was checking the release
>>>> artifacts -
>>>> didn't see a problem with DEPENDENCIES there either.
>>>>
>>>> You are Maven 3? Could that be the difference, I'm running Maven 2.2.1.
>>> I seem to remember seeing this with Maven 2.2.1 from before. I think
>>> what happens when doing the release is the DEPENDENCIES file is
>>> created then the source zip is created and the DEPENDENCIES file is
>>> included in that. Moving from Maven 2.2.1 to 3, I don't think RAT has
>>> changed.
>>>
>>> I just tried it with Maven 2.2.1 and get the same result:
>>>
>>> *****************************************************
>>> Files with Apache License headers will be marked AL
>>> Binary files (which do not require AL headers) will be marked B
>>> Compressed archives will be marked A
>>> Notices, licenses etc will be marked N
>>> AL default-parent/java5-parent/pom.xml
>>> AL default-parent/pom.xml
>>> !????? DEPENDENCIES
>>> N LICENSE
>>> N NOTICE
>>> AL pom.xml
>>>
>>> *****************************************************
>>>
>>> I don't think it's worth respinning the release for this, as it is a
>>> generated file and doesn't have any intellectual property in it.
>>>
>>>>> I'm still to check the binaries though, but not today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24 January 2011 13:53, zoe slattery wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've staged a release candidate 00 for the 0.3 release. Please use
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> thread for any discussion. If you check the release please will
>>>>>> you say
>>>>>> exactly what you checked - even if it passes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zoė
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
---------------------------------
HomePage
http://www.nanthrax.net
---------------------------------
Contacts
jbonofre@apache.org
jb@nanthrax.net
---------------------------------
OpenSource
BuildProcess/AutoDeploy
http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net
Apache ServiceMix
http://servicemix.apache.org
-----------------------------------
PGP : 17D4F086
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
Posted by zoe slattery <zo...@gmail.com>.
On 26/01/2011 17:12, Timothy Ward wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ARIES-556 was raised as a critical bug against 0.2 on Monday, and has been fixed in trunk. It would be good to get it into the 0.3 release rather than have a known critical bug in the JPA code. Is there a chance of respinning the JPA component for 0.3?
Yes :-). I'll merge the changes, respin the JPA component, create an
RC01 and restart the vote. Thanks,
Zoe
> Regards,
>
> Tim
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> From: hughesj@apache.org
>> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:37:42 +0000
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
>> To: dev@aries.apache.org
>>
>> On 24 January 2011 18:34, zoe slattery wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2011 17:23, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>> So far, I've checked the source zips' .md5 .sha1 .asc .asc.md5
>>>> .asc.sha1 files. I've run mvn -Prat on the unzipped source and get a
>>>> problem for each of the DEPENDENCIES files. I think we hit this in 0.2
>>>> and 0.1 and decided to overlook it as they are generated files.
>>> Curious - I have just run 'mvn -Prat install' in the release candidate
>>> branch and I _don't_ get a problem with DEPENDENCIES files.
>>> I actually used mvn rat:check when I was checking the release artifacts -
>>> didn't see a problem with DEPENDENCIES there either.
>>>
>>> You are Maven 3? Could that be the difference, I'm running Maven 2.2.1.
>> I seem to remember seeing this with Maven 2.2.1 from before. I think
>> what happens when doing the release is the DEPENDENCIES file is
>> created then the source zip is created and the DEPENDENCIES file is
>> included in that. Moving from Maven 2.2.1 to 3, I don't think RAT has
>> changed.
>>
>> I just tried it with Maven 2.2.1 and get the same result:
>>
>> *****************************************************
>> Files with Apache License headers will be marked AL
>> Binary files (which do not require AL headers) will be marked B
>> Compressed archives will be marked A
>> Notices, licenses etc will be marked N
>> AL default-parent/java5-parent/pom.xml
>> AL default-parent/pom.xml
>> !????? DEPENDENCIES
>> N LICENSE
>> N NOTICE
>> AL pom.xml
>>
>> *****************************************************
>>
>> I don't think it's worth respinning the release for this, as it is a
>> generated file and doesn't have any intellectual property in it.
>>
>>>> I'm still to check the binaries though, but not today.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>> On 24 January 2011 13:53, zoe slattery wrote:
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>> I've staged a release candidate 00 for the 0.3 release. Please use this
>>>>> thread for any discussion. If you check the release please will you say
>>>>> exactly what you checked - even if it passes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Zoė
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
Posted by Timothy Ward <ti...@apache.org>.
Hi,
ARIES-556 was raised as a critical bug against 0.2 on Monday, and has been fixed in trunk. It would be good to get it into the 0.3 release rather than have a known critical bug in the JPA code. Is there a chance of respinning the JPA component for 0.3?
Regards,
Tim
----------------------------------------
> From: hughesj@apache.org
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:37:42 +0000
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
> To: dev@aries.apache.org
>
> On 24 January 2011 18:34, zoe slattery wrote:
> > On 24/01/2011 17:23, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> >>
> >> So far, I've checked the source zips' .md5 .sha1 .asc .asc.md5
> >> .asc.sha1 files. I've run mvn -Prat on the unzipped source and get a
> >> problem for each of the DEPENDENCIES files. I think we hit this in 0.2
> >> and 0.1 and decided to overlook it as they are generated files.
> >
> > Curious - I have just run 'mvn -Prat install' in the release candidate
> > branch and I _don't_ get a problem with DEPENDENCIES files.
> > I actually used mvn rat:check when I was checking the release artifacts -
> > didn't see a problem with DEPENDENCIES there either.
> >
> > You are Maven 3? Could that be the difference, I'm running Maven 2.2.1.
>
> I seem to remember seeing this with Maven 2.2.1 from before. I think
> what happens when doing the release is the DEPENDENCIES file is
> created then the source zip is created and the DEPENDENCIES file is
> included in that. Moving from Maven 2.2.1 to 3, I don't think RAT has
> changed.
>
> I just tried it with Maven 2.2.1 and get the same result:
>
> *****************************************************
> Files with Apache License headers will be marked AL
> Binary files (which do not require AL headers) will be marked B
> Compressed archives will be marked A
> Notices, licenses etc will be marked N
> AL default-parent/java5-parent/pom.xml
> AL default-parent/pom.xml
> !????? DEPENDENCIES
> N LICENSE
> N NOTICE
> AL pom.xml
>
> *****************************************************
>
> I don't think it's worth respinning the release for this, as it is a
> generated file and doesn't have any intellectual property in it.
>
> >>
> >> I'm still to check the binaries though, but not today.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Jeremy
> >>
> >> On 24 January 2011 13:53, zoe slattery wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> I've staged a release candidate 00 for the 0.3 release. Please use this
> >>> thread for any discussion. If you check the release please will you say
> >>> exactly what you checked - even if it passes?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Zoė
> >>>
> >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
Posted by Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org>.
On 24 January 2011 18:34, zoe slattery <zo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/01/2011 17:23, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>
>> So far, I've checked the source zips' .md5 .sha1 .asc .asc.md5
>> .asc.sha1 files. I've run mvn -Prat on the unzipped source and get a
>> problem for each of the DEPENDENCIES files. I think we hit this in 0.2
>> and 0.1 and decided to overlook it as they are generated files.
>
> Curious - I have just run 'mvn -Prat install' in the release candidate
> branch and I _don't_ get a problem with DEPENDENCIES files.
> I actually used mvn rat:check when I was checking the release artifacts -
> didn't see a problem with DEPENDENCIES there either.
>
> You are Maven 3? Could that be the difference, I'm running Maven 2.2.1.
I seem to remember seeing this with Maven 2.2.1 from before. I think
what happens when doing the release is the DEPENDENCIES file is
created then the source zip is created and the DEPENDENCIES file is
included in that. Moving from Maven 2.2.1 to 3, I don't think RAT has
changed.
I just tried it with Maven 2.2.1 and get the same result:
*****************************************************
Files with Apache License headers will be marked AL
Binary files (which do not require AL headers) will be marked B
Compressed archives will be marked A
Notices, licenses etc will be marked N
AL default-parent/java5-parent/pom.xml
AL default-parent/pom.xml
!????? DEPENDENCIES
N LICENSE
N NOTICE
AL pom.xml
*****************************************************
I don't think it's worth respinning the release for this, as it is a
generated file and doesn't have any intellectual property in it.
>>
>> I'm still to check the binaries though, but not today.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jeremy
>>
>> On 24 January 2011 13:53, zoe slattery<zo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> I've staged a release candidate 00 for the 0.3 release. Please use this
>>> thread for any discussion. If you check the release please will you say
>>> exactly what you checked - even if it passes?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Zoė
>>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
Posted by zoe slattery <zo...@gmail.com>.
On 24/01/2011 17:23, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> So far, I've checked the source zips' .md5 .sha1 .asc .asc.md5
> .asc.sha1 files. I've run mvn -Prat on the unzipped source and get a
> problem for each of the DEPENDENCIES files. I think we hit this in 0.2
> and 0.1 and decided to overlook it as they are generated files.
Curious - I have just run 'mvn -Prat install' in the release candidate
branch and I _don't_ get a problem with DEPENDENCIES files.
I actually used mvn rat:check when I was checking the release artifacts
- didn't see a problem with DEPENDENCIES there either.
You are Maven 3? Could that be the difference, I'm running Maven 2.2.1.
> I'm still to check the binaries though, but not today.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeremy
>
> On 24 January 2011 13:53, zoe slattery<zo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I've staged a release candidate 00 for the 0.3 release. Please use this
>> thread for any discussion. If you check the release please will you say
>> exactly what you checked - even if it passes?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Zoė
>>