You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hc.apache.org by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> on 2014/06/25 18:33:25 UTC
[VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Client
4.4-alpha1. The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only votes
from HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at least
three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes.
Packages:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1
revision 5675
Release notes:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES-4.4.x.txt
Maven artefacts:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-1012/org/apache/httpcomponents/
SVN tag:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient/tags/4.4-alpha1-RC1
revision 1605416
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote: HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 release
[ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
[ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by "Asankha C. Perera" <as...@apache.org>.
On 06/25/2014 10:03 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> Vote: HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 release
> [X] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
> [ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
thanks
asankha
--
Asankha C. Perera
AdroitLogic, http://adroitlogic.org
http://esbmagic.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@ok2consulting.com>.
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 09:45 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Not surprising but just noting that "mvn javadoc:aggregate" does not work
> on Java 8.
>
> Gary
>
There was a whole bunch of commits related to Javadoc fixes for Java 8.
I thought you were working on it.
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Not surprising but just noting that "mvn javadoc:aggregate" does not work
on Java 8.
Gary
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> [x] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1
>
> On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 18:33 +0200, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> > Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Client
> > 4.4-alpha1. The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only votes
> > from HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at least
> > three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes.
> >
> > Packages:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1
> > revision 5675
> >
> > Release notes:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES-4.4.x.txt
> >
> > Maven artefacts:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-1012/org/apache/httpcomponents/
> >
> > SVN tag:
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient/tags/4.4-alpha1-RC1
> > revision 1605416
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Vote: HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 release
> > [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
> > [ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 19:07 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 29 June 2014 17:31, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 17:22 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> On 29 June 2014 17:07, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> >> > Ah, finally. So are website or any reports.
> >> >>
> >> >> The website is not really optional as far as consumers are concerned,
> >> >> but is not generally subject to a release vote.
> >> >> However there are still some rules (e.g. branding) which the site must follow.
> >> >>
> >> >> The reports are not strictly needed for consumers, although the Clirr
> >> >> one may be useful.
> >> >> However, some of the are important for the purpose of the release vote.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > So, they can be and should be built from source.
> >>
> >> As I wrote previously, RAT and Clirr are important parts of the
> >> release vote process.
> >> So yes of course the reviewers can and should run the checks themselves.
> >> This applies to the RM as well.
> >>
> >> But I think it is important to document that these checks have been
> >> done by providing the links in the release vote e-mail.
> >>
> >
> > Links to what?
>
> The reports.
>
What reports? Hosted where?
> > As I said previously it is irrelevant what kind of reports are published
> > by RM as there is no reliable way that they match the source.
>
> I already wrote, the reviewers can still run their own checks, as the RM must.
> Including the reports in the RC VOTE shows that these items have been
> considered.
>
As I already pointed out any content produced or referred by RM is
irrelevant if it is not a part of source tarball. You simply insist on
RM doing pointless and useless work. If a reviewer considers Clirr
reports important for the vote he/she must generate them from source.
...
> > And I do not see two issues here. I see one and only issue here which
> > whether or not the source tarball being voted upon can be used to build
> > binary artifacts meeting specific requirements. Binary artifacts built
> > by RM are merely convenience.
>
> Yes, they are merely convenience, but as I already wrote, they are
> distributions of software by the ASF.
> And so are subject to rules on content and NOTICE and LICENSE etc.
>
> It is important that the binaries are subject to at least some scrutiny.
> For example, suppose a product depends on an LGPL dependency (this is
> allowed under some circumstances.)
> However, the dependency must not be bundled with the binaries.
> So it is important that the reviewers are able to check the contents
> of the RC binaries.
>
> It does not really help if the reviewers check their own binaries, as
> those are not the ones that are going to be distributed.
> One might as well say that the reviewers should build their own source
> bundle and vote on that, rather than voting on the artifacts that are
> detailed in the RC vote.
>
As I already pointed out one should be checking the ability to produce
binary artifacts that meet required criteria from source tarball being
released rather than any particular binaries.
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 29 June 2014 17:31, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 17:22 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> On 29 June 2014 17:07, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> >> > Ah, finally. So are website or any reports.
>> >>
>> >> The website is not really optional as far as consumers are concerned,
>> >> but is not generally subject to a release vote.
>> >> However there are still some rules (e.g. branding) which the site must follow.
>> >>
>> >> The reports are not strictly needed for consumers, although the Clirr
>> >> one may be useful.
>> >> However, some of the are important for the purpose of the release vote.
>> >>
>> >
>> > So, they can be and should be built from source.
>>
>> As I wrote previously, RAT and Clirr are important parts of the
>> release vote process.
>> So yes of course the reviewers can and should run the checks themselves.
>> This applies to the RM as well.
>>
>> But I think it is important to document that these checks have been
>> done by providing the links in the release vote e-mail.
>>
>
> Links to what?
The reports.
> As I said previously it is irrelevant what kind of reports are published
> by RM as there is no reliable way that they match the source.
I already wrote, the reviewers can still run their own checks, as the RM must.
Including the reports in the RC VOTE shows that these items have been
considered.
If the reviewer's copies of the reports don't agree with the linked
ones then that can be investigated.
Clirr reports in particular are open to some interpretation, so it is
important that the reviewers know what RM based any decisions on.
>> >> >> But they are still distributions, and still need to follow the rules
>> >> >> regarding NOTICE and LICENSE etc.
>> >> >> And sigs/hashes must be OK
>> >> >> ETC.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, by making sure that the correct artifacts can be built from source.
>> >>
>> >> No (*).
>> >>
>> >> Assuming that the RM intends to publish the binary jars to Maven and
>> >> the binary bundle to the ASF mirrors, then these are distributions. As
>> >> such they must meet the requirements.
>> >>
>> >> For example the ASF does not allow bundling of 3rd party code that is
>> >> not compatible with the AL2.0. This is to ensure consumers can be sure
>> >> that the downloads we provide are available under the AL2.0 license.
>> >>
>> >> (*) ensuring that the artefacts can be built from source is a separate issue.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> I see two separate (but related) issues here:
>>
>> - do the binary artefacts that are provided as part of the release
>> vote meet the requirements?
>> - can I build the binary artefacts myself, and if so do they look
>> similar to the ones in the vote?
>>
>> It's quite possible that my host system has a problem that prevents me
>> from building the code.
>> However that does not mean that any checks I do on the RC binaries are useless.
>>
>> Of course, if there are build problems on my system, ideally these
>> need to be investigated in case there is a problem with the scripts
>> that only exhibits itself on certain host types. But that does not
>> necessarily mean that the RC fails.
>>
>
> And I do not see two issues here. I see one and only issue here which
> whether or not the source tarball being voted upon can be used to build
> binary artifacts meeting specific requirements. Binary artifacts built
> by RM are merely convenience.
Yes, they are merely convenience, but as I already wrote, they are
distributions of software by the ASF.
And so are subject to rules on content and NOTICE and LICENSE etc.
It is important that the binaries are subject to at least some scrutiny.
For example, suppose a product depends on an LGPL dependency (this is
allowed under some circumstances.)
However, the dependency must not be bundled with the binaries.
So it is important that the reviewers are able to check the contents
of the RC binaries.
It does not really help if the reviewers check their own binaries, as
those are not the ones that are going to be distributed.
One might as well say that the reviewers should build their own source
bundle and vote on that, rather than voting on the artifacts that are
detailed in the RC vote.
> Oleg
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 17:22 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 29 June 2014 17:07, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
...
> >> > Ah, finally. So are website or any reports.
> >>
> >> The website is not really optional as far as consumers are concerned,
> >> but is not generally subject to a release vote.
> >> However there are still some rules (e.g. branding) which the site must follow.
> >>
> >> The reports are not strictly needed for consumers, although the Clirr
> >> one may be useful.
> >> However, some of the are important for the purpose of the release vote.
> >>
> >
> > So, they can be and should be built from source.
>
> As I wrote previously, RAT and Clirr are important parts of the
> release vote process.
> So yes of course the reviewers can and should run the checks themselves.
> This applies to the RM as well.
>
> But I think it is important to document that these checks have been
> done by providing the links in the release vote e-mail.
>
Links to what?
As I said previously it is irrelevant what kind of reports are published
by RM as there is no reliable way that they match the source.
> >> >> But they are still distributions, and still need to follow the rules
> >> >> regarding NOTICE and LICENSE etc.
> >> >> And sigs/hashes must be OK
> >> >> ETC.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yes, by making sure that the correct artifacts can be built from source.
> >>
> >> No (*).
> >>
> >> Assuming that the RM intends to publish the binary jars to Maven and
> >> the binary bundle to the ASF mirrors, then these are distributions. As
> >> such they must meet the requirements.
> >>
> >> For example the ASF does not allow bundling of 3rd party code that is
> >> not compatible with the AL2.0. This is to ensure consumers can be sure
> >> that the downloads we provide are available under the AL2.0 license.
> >>
> >> (*) ensuring that the artefacts can be built from source is a separate issue.
> >>
> >
> > No.
>
> Huh?
>
> I see two separate (but related) issues here:
>
> - do the binary artefacts that are provided as part of the release
> vote meet the requirements?
> - can I build the binary artefacts myself, and if so do they look
> similar to the ones in the vote?
>
> It's quite possible that my host system has a problem that prevents me
> from building the code.
> However that does not mean that any checks I do on the RC binaries are useless.
>
> Of course, if there are build problems on my system, ideally these
> need to be investigated in case there is a problem with the scripts
> that only exhibits itself on certain host types. But that does not
> necessarily mean that the RC fails.
>
And I do not see two issues here. I see one and only issue here which
whether or not the source tarball being voted upon can be used to build
binary artifacts meeting specific requirements. Binary artifacts built
by RM are merely convenience.
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 29 June 2014 17:07, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 16:55 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> On 29 June 2014 15:59, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 15:27 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> >> On 29 June 2014 15:15, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>
> ...
>
>> >> >
>> >> > What we release is a source tarball. Binary artifacts are distributed
>> >> > merely for convenience of users.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, they are optional.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ah, finally. So are website or any reports.
>>
>> The website is not really optional as far as consumers are concerned,
>> but is not generally subject to a release vote.
>> However there are still some rules (e.g. branding) which the site must follow.
>>
>> The reports are not strictly needed for consumers, although the Clirr
>> one may be useful.
>> However, some of the are important for the purpose of the release vote.
>>
>
> So, they can be and should be built from source.
As I wrote previously, RAT and Clirr are important parts of the
release vote process.
So yes of course the reviewers can and should run the checks themselves.
This applies to the RM as well.
But I think it is important to document that these checks have been
done by providing the links in the release vote e-mail.
>> >> But they are still distributions, and still need to follow the rules
>> >> regarding NOTICE and LICENSE etc.
>> >> And sigs/hashes must be OK
>> >> ETC.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes, by making sure that the correct artifacts can be built from source.
>>
>> No (*).
>>
>> Assuming that the RM intends to publish the binary jars to Maven and
>> the binary bundle to the ASF mirrors, then these are distributions. As
>> such they must meet the requirements.
>>
>> For example the ASF does not allow bundling of 3rd party code that is
>> not compatible with the AL2.0. This is to ensure consumers can be sure
>> that the downloads we provide are available under the AL2.0 license.
>>
>> (*) ensuring that the artefacts can be built from source is a separate issue.
>>
>
> No.
Huh?
I see two separate (but related) issues here:
- do the binary artefacts that are provided as part of the release
vote meet the requirements?
- can I build the binary artefacts myself, and if so do they look
similar to the ones in the vote?
It's quite possible that my host system has a problem that prevents me
from building the code.
However that does not mean that any checks I do on the RC binaries are useless.
Of course, if there are build problems on my system, ideally these
need to be investigated in case there is a problem with the scripts
that only exhibits itself on certain host types. But that does not
necessarily mean that the RC fails.
> Oleg
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 16:55 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 29 June 2014 15:59, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 15:27 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> On 29 June 2014 15:15, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
...
> >> >
> >> > What we release is a source tarball. Binary artifacts are distributed
> >> > merely for convenience of users.
> >>
> >> Yes, they are optional.
> >>
> >
> > Ah, finally. So are website or any reports.
>
> The website is not really optional as far as consumers are concerned,
> but is not generally subject to a release vote.
> However there are still some rules (e.g. branding) which the site must follow.
>
> The reports are not strictly needed for consumers, although the Clirr
> one may be useful.
> However, some of the are important for the purpose of the release vote.
>
So, they can be and should be built from source.
> >> But they are still distributions, and still need to follow the rules
> >> regarding NOTICE and LICENSE etc.
> >> And sigs/hashes must be OK
> >> ETC.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, by making sure that the correct artifacts can be built from source.
>
> No (*).
>
> Assuming that the RM intends to publish the binary jars to Maven and
> the binary bundle to the ASF mirrors, then these are distributions. As
> such they must meet the requirements.
>
> For example the ASF does not allow bundling of 3rd party code that is
> not compatible with the AL2.0. This is to ensure consumers can be sure
> that the downloads we provide are available under the AL2.0 license.
>
> (*) ensuring that the artefacts can be built from source is a separate issue.
>
No.
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 29 June 2014 15:59, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 15:27 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> On 29 June 2014 15:15, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> There's also no way to be sure that the binaries agree with the source.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And here we go. Voting on binary artifacts is equally stupid. The only
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry, that was a bad analogy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But there are some aspects of binary artifacts that can - and should -
>> >> >> be checked.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For example, sigs, hashes, NOTICE and LICENSE.
>> >> >> Ensuring that the binary artifacts don't contain bundled items that
>> >> >> should not be present.
>> >> >> Ensuring that jars have suitable MANIFEST entries
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Which one should do by generating those binary artifacts from the
>> >> > source.
>> >>
>> >> Huh?
>> >> How does that help?
>> >>
>> >> The binary artifacts in the release vote are the ones that are going
>> >> to be published via the ASF mirrors.
>> >> So they are the ones that need checking to ensure that nothing has
>> >> gone wrong with the build.
>> >>
>> >> Any build others may do is not directly relevant to the artifacts that
>> >> are proposed for release.
>> >>
>> >
>> > What we release is a source tarball. Binary artifacts are distributed
>> > merely for convenience of users.
>>
>> Yes, they are optional.
>>
>
> Ah, finally. So are website or any reports.
The website is not really optional as far as consumers are concerned,
but is not generally subject to a release vote.
However there are still some rules (e.g. branding) which the site must follow.
The reports are not strictly needed for consumers, although the Clirr
one may be useful.
However, some of the are important for the purpose of the release vote.
>> But they are still distributions, and still need to follow the rules
>> regarding NOTICE and LICENSE etc.
>> And sigs/hashes must be OK
>> ETC.
>>
>
> Yes, by making sure that the correct artifacts can be built from source.
No (*).
Assuming that the RM intends to publish the binary jars to Maven and
the binary bundle to the ASF mirrors, then these are distributions. As
such they must meet the requirements.
For example the ASF does not allow bundling of 3rd party code that is
not compatible with the AL2.0. This is to ensure consumers can be sure
that the downloads we provide are available under the AL2.0 license.
(*) ensuring that the artefacts can be built from source is a separate issue.
> Oleg
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 15:27 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 29 June 2014 15:15, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There's also no way to be sure that the binaries agree with the source.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And here we go. Voting on binary artifacts is equally stupid. The only
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry, that was a bad analogy.
> >> >>
> >> >> But there are some aspects of binary artifacts that can - and should -
> >> >> be checked.
> >> >>
> >> >> For example, sigs, hashes, NOTICE and LICENSE.
> >> >> Ensuring that the binary artifacts don't contain bundled items that
> >> >> should not be present.
> >> >> Ensuring that jars have suitable MANIFEST entries
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Which one should do by generating those binary artifacts from the
> >> > source.
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >> How does that help?
> >>
> >> The binary artifacts in the release vote are the ones that are going
> >> to be published via the ASF mirrors.
> >> So they are the ones that need checking to ensure that nothing has
> >> gone wrong with the build.
> >>
> >> Any build others may do is not directly relevant to the artifacts that
> >> are proposed for release.
> >>
> >
> > What we release is a source tarball. Binary artifacts are distributed
> > merely for convenience of users.
>
> Yes, they are optional.
>
Ah, finally. So are website or any reports.
> But they are still distributions, and still need to follow the rules
> regarding NOTICE and LICENSE etc.
> And sigs/hashes must be OK
> ETC.
>
Yes, by making sure that the correct artifacts can be built from source.
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 29 June 2014 15:15, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 15:04 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> On 29 June 2014 14:42, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 14:24 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> >> On 29 June 2014 12:55, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 01:14 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> >> >> On 28 June 2014 09:28, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 00:24 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 27 June 2014 20:44, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 17:56 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help
>> >> >> >> >> when reviewing the RC.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What's wrong with 'mvn clirr:check', which is a part of the release
>> >> >> >> > process anyway? One is welcome to add RAT maven plugin as well.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> My point is that these reports should be part of the RC VOTE.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Right, and 'mvn clirr:check' gives you exactly that report. Voting on
>> >> >> > some pre-generated report or website is _idiocy_ because there is no way
>> >> >> > of telling if those reports actually match the release artifacts voted
>> >> >> > upon.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There's also no way to be sure that the binaries agree with the source.
>> >> >
>> >> > And here we go. Voting on binary artifacts is equally stupid. The only
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, that was a bad analogy.
>> >>
>> >> But there are some aspects of binary artifacts that can - and should -
>> >> be checked.
>> >>
>> >> For example, sigs, hashes, NOTICE and LICENSE.
>> >> Ensuring that the binary artifacts don't contain bundled items that
>> >> should not be present.
>> >> Ensuring that jars have suitable MANIFEST entries
>> >>
>> >
>> > Which one should do by generating those binary artifacts from the
>> > source.
>>
>> Huh?
>> How does that help?
>>
>> The binary artifacts in the release vote are the ones that are going
>> to be published via the ASF mirrors.
>> So they are the ones that need checking to ensure that nothing has
>> gone wrong with the build.
>>
>> Any build others may do is not directly relevant to the artifacts that
>> are proposed for release.
>>
>
> What we release is a source tarball. Binary artifacts are distributed
> merely for convenience of users.
Yes, they are optional.
But they are still distributions, and still need to follow the rules
regarding NOTICE and LICENSE etc.
And sigs/hashes must be OK
ETC.
> Oleg
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 15:04 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 29 June 2014 14:42, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 14:24 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> On 29 June 2014 12:55, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 01:14 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> >> On 28 June 2014 09:28, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 00:24 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> >> >> On 27 June 2014 20:44, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 17:56 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> >> >> >> I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help
> >> >> >> >> when reviewing the RC.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What's wrong with 'mvn clirr:check', which is a part of the release
> >> >> >> > process anyway? One is welcome to add RAT maven plugin as well.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> My point is that these reports should be part of the RC VOTE.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Right, and 'mvn clirr:check' gives you exactly that report. Voting on
> >> >> > some pre-generated report or website is _idiocy_ because there is no way
> >> >> > of telling if those reports actually match the release artifacts voted
> >> >> > upon.
> >> >>
> >> >> There's also no way to be sure that the binaries agree with the source.
> >> >
> >> > And here we go. Voting on binary artifacts is equally stupid. The only
> >>
> >> Sorry, that was a bad analogy.
> >>
> >> But there are some aspects of binary artifacts that can - and should -
> >> be checked.
> >>
> >> For example, sigs, hashes, NOTICE and LICENSE.
> >> Ensuring that the binary artifacts don't contain bundled items that
> >> should not be present.
> >> Ensuring that jars have suitable MANIFEST entries
> >>
> >
> > Which one should do by generating those binary artifacts from the
> > source.
>
> Huh?
> How does that help?
>
> The binary artifacts in the release vote are the ones that are going
> to be published via the ASF mirrors.
> So they are the ones that need checking to ensure that nothing has
> gone wrong with the build.
>
> Any build others may do is not directly relevant to the artifacts that
> are proposed for release.
>
What we release is a source tarball. Binary artifacts are distributed
merely for convenience of users.
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 29 June 2014 14:42, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 14:24 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> On 29 June 2014 12:55, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 01:14 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> >> On 28 June 2014 09:28, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 00:24 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> >> >> On 27 June 2014 20:44, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 17:56 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> >> >> >> I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help
>> >> >> >> when reviewing the RC.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What's wrong with 'mvn clirr:check', which is a part of the release
>> >> >> > process anyway? One is welcome to add RAT maven plugin as well.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My point is that these reports should be part of the RC VOTE.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Right, and 'mvn clirr:check' gives you exactly that report. Voting on
>> >> > some pre-generated report or website is _idiocy_ because there is no way
>> >> > of telling if those reports actually match the release artifacts voted
>> >> > upon.
>> >>
>> >> There's also no way to be sure that the binaries agree with the source.
>> >
>> > And here we go. Voting on binary artifacts is equally stupid. The only
>>
>> Sorry, that was a bad analogy.
>>
>> But there are some aspects of binary artifacts that can - and should -
>> be checked.
>>
>> For example, sigs, hashes, NOTICE and LICENSE.
>> Ensuring that the binary artifacts don't contain bundled items that
>> should not be present.
>> Ensuring that jars have suitable MANIFEST entries
>>
>
> Which one should do by generating those binary artifacts from the
> source.
Huh?
How does that help?
The binary artifacts in the release vote are the ones that are going
to be published via the ASF mirrors.
So they are the ones that need checking to ensure that nothing has
gone wrong with the build.
Any build others may do is not directly relevant to the artifacts that
are proposed for release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 14:24 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 29 June 2014 12:55, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 01:14 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> On 28 June 2014 09:28, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 00:24 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> >> On 27 June 2014 20:44, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 17:56 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> >> >> I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help
> >> >> >> when reviewing the RC.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What's wrong with 'mvn clirr:check', which is a part of the release
> >> >> > process anyway? One is welcome to add RAT maven plugin as well.
> >> >>
> >> >> My point is that these reports should be part of the RC VOTE.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Right, and 'mvn clirr:check' gives you exactly that report. Voting on
> >> > some pre-generated report or website is _idiocy_ because there is no way
> >> > of telling if those reports actually match the release artifacts voted
> >> > upon.
> >>
> >> There's also no way to be sure that the binaries agree with the source.
> >
> > And here we go. Voting on binary artifacts is equally stupid. The only
>
> Sorry, that was a bad analogy.
>
> But there are some aspects of binary artifacts that can - and should -
> be checked.
>
> For example, sigs, hashes, NOTICE and LICENSE.
> Ensuring that the binary artifacts don't contain bundled items that
> should not be present.
> Ensuring that jars have suitable MANIFEST entries
>
Which one should do by generating those binary artifacts from the
source.
> > thing we should be voting on is source tarball. But who cares? Playing
> > ASF police is just too much fun, isn't it?
>
> That was unnecessary.
>
I also see many things here as unnecessary.
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 29 June 2014 12:55, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 01:14 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> On 28 June 2014 09:28, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 00:24 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> >> On 27 June 2014 20:44, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 17:56 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> >> >> I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help
>> >> >> when reviewing the RC.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > What's wrong with 'mvn clirr:check', which is a part of the release
>> >> > process anyway? One is welcome to add RAT maven plugin as well.
>> >>
>> >> My point is that these reports should be part of the RC VOTE.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Right, and 'mvn clirr:check' gives you exactly that report. Voting on
>> > some pre-generated report or website is _idiocy_ because there is no way
>> > of telling if those reports actually match the release artifacts voted
>> > upon.
>>
>> There's also no way to be sure that the binaries agree with the source.
>
> And here we go. Voting on binary artifacts is equally stupid. The only
Sorry, that was a bad analogy.
But there are some aspects of binary artifacts that can - and should -
be checked.
For example, sigs, hashes, NOTICE and LICENSE.
Ensuring that the binary artifacts don't contain bundled items that
should not be present.
Ensuring that jars have suitable MANIFEST entries
> thing we should be voting on is source tarball. But who cares? Playing
> ASF police is just too much fun, isn't it?
That was unnecessary.
> Oleg
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 01:14 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 28 June 2014 09:28, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 00:24 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> On 27 June 2014 20:44, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 17:56 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> >> I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help
> >> >> when reviewing the RC.
> >> >>
> >> >> Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > What's wrong with 'mvn clirr:check', which is a part of the release
> >> > process anyway? One is welcome to add RAT maven plugin as well.
> >>
> >> My point is that these reports should be part of the RC VOTE.
> >>
> >
> > Right, and 'mvn clirr:check' gives you exactly that report. Voting on
> > some pre-generated report or website is _idiocy_ because there is no way
> > of telling if those reports actually match the release artifacts voted
> > upon.
>
> There's also no way to be sure that the binaries agree with the source.
And here we go. Voting on binary artifacts is equally stupid. The only
thing we should be voting on is source tarball. But who cares? Playing
ASF police is just too much fun, isn't it?
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 28 June 2014 09:28, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 00:24 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> On 27 June 2014 20:44, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 17:56 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> >> I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help
>> >> when reviewing the RC.
>> >>
>> >> Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report.
>> >>
>> >
>> > What's wrong with 'mvn clirr:check', which is a part of the release
>> > process anyway? One is welcome to add RAT maven plugin as well.
>>
>> My point is that these reports should be part of the RC VOTE.
>>
>
> Right, and 'mvn clirr:check' gives you exactly that report. Voting on
> some pre-generated report or website is _idiocy_ because there is no way
> of telling if those reports actually match the release artifacts voted
> upon.
There's also no way to be sure that the binaries agree with the source.
One has to assume that the RM is not being deliberately devious.
The point is that the RM has to run the RAT and Clirr reports, and
having them in the RC vote is a way of showing that for the e-mail
record.
The reviewers can also run the reports themselves.
I think the site should be present for future releases.
The site is not strictly part of the vote, but it contains some useful
reports, and it does no harm for the reviewers to scan the site for
any obvious errors.
>> >> Also, the RC VOTE e-mail should contain the KEYS URL.
>> >> Yes, I know I can hunt around and find it, but it should really be
>> >> present to enable the sigs to be checked.
>> >>
>> >
>> > KEYS file is at its standard location [1] but I can put this url into
>>
>> I would say the standard location is
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/disk/<tlpname>/KEYS
>>
>> At least that is where most other TLPs seem to keep it.
>>
>> > the vote message template if you think it would add value.
>>
>> Please.
>>
>> Apart from the fact that the KEYS file is in a different place from
>> other projects, it is useful because:
>> - can copy/paste the mail contents easily
>> - it is a required part of the voting so should be documented in the mail
>>
>
> I can do that, but not for this release.
OK
> Oleg
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 00:24 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 27 June 2014 20:44, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 17:56 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help
> >> when reviewing the RC.
> >>
> >> Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report.
> >>
> >
> > What's wrong with 'mvn clirr:check', which is a part of the release
> > process anyway? One is welcome to add RAT maven plugin as well.
>
> My point is that these reports should be part of the RC VOTE.
>
Right, and 'mvn clirr:check' gives you exactly that report. Voting on
some pre-generated report or website is _idiocy_ because there is no way
of telling if those reports actually match the release artifacts voted
upon.
> >> Also, the RC VOTE e-mail should contain the KEYS URL.
> >> Yes, I know I can hunt around and find it, but it should really be
> >> present to enable the sigs to be checked.
> >>
> >
> > KEYS file is at its standard location [1] but I can put this url into
>
> I would say the standard location is
>
> http://www.apache.org/disk/<tlpname>/KEYS
>
> At least that is where most other TLPs seem to keep it.
>
> > the vote message template if you think it would add value.
>
> Please.
>
> Apart from the fact that the KEYS file is in a different place from
> other projects, it is useful because:
> - can copy/paste the mail contents easily
> - it is a required part of the voting so should be documented in the mail
>
I can do that, but not for this release.
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 27 June 2014 20:44, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 17:56 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help
>> when reviewing the RC.
>>
>> Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report.
>>
>
> What's wrong with 'mvn clirr:check', which is a part of the release
> process anyway? One is welcome to add RAT maven plugin as well.
My point is that these reports should be part of the RC VOTE.
>> Also, the RC VOTE e-mail should contain the KEYS URL.
>> Yes, I know I can hunt around and find it, but it should really be
>> present to enable the sigs to be checked.
>>
>
> KEYS file is at its standard location [1] but I can put this url into
I would say the standard location is
http://www.apache.org/disk/<tlpname>/KEYS
At least that is where most other TLPs seem to keep it.
> the vote message template if you think it would add value.
Please.
Apart from the fact that the KEYS file is in a different place from
other projects, it is useful because:
- can copy/paste the mail contents easily
- it is a required part of the voting so should be documented in the mail
> Oleg
>
> [1]
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpcomponents/httpclient/KEYS
>
>
>> [BTW, I now have a shell script which can automatically check sigs
>> against a specific KEYS file.
>> I can add that to SVN somewhere if it would be of use to others]
>>
>>
>> On 27 June 2014 17:25, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 11:57 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:57 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> >> > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:19 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> >> > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Gary Gregory <
>> >> > garydgregory@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <
>> >> > olegk@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> >> > > > > >> > Why no site?
>> >> > > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> *sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Yes, but as part of the release process it would help reviewing
>> >> > the RC
>> >> > > > by
>> >> > > > > > looking at reports.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > For example, how do I know all files have the right license header
>> >> > > > without
>> >> > > > > a RAT report?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Like, by running RAT against the source dist, no?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Hm, I consider it part of the RM's duty to create all of these reports.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The people how VOTE can inspect the reports...
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > RM's duty based on what? RM's duty is produce release artifacts. Nether
>> >> > site content nor reports of any sort are not release artifacts.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I beg to differ. By not producing Maven reports for RAT, FindBugs, PMD,
>> >> Surefire and so on, you are making the job of reviewers harder, not easier.
>> >> Over at Commons and Logging, we produce a full site with reports as part of
>> >> a VOTE.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You are very welcome to do so. However, we have a certain release
>> > process, too [1]. You are also very welcome to propose improvements to
>> > that process and add things you deem important if they are missing. But
>> > pointing out that something has not been done in a _release vote_ is not
>> > very constructive, is it? If it is not a blocker, can we discuss it
>> > _after_ the vote and actually move on with the vote? If it is a blocker
>> > by all of means feel free to vote accordingly.
>> >
>> > Oleg
>> >
>> > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/HttpComponents/HttpComponentsReleaseProcess
>> >
>> >> Is every reviewer going to manually run a Maven RAT report? I doubt it, and
>> >> in the case of RAT, it is a crucial part of the process.
>> >>
>> >> Gary
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Oleg
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 17:56 +0100, sebb wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help
> when reviewing the RC.
>
> Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report.
>
What's wrong with 'mvn clirr:check', which is a part of the release
process anyway? One is welcome to add RAT maven plugin as well.
> Also, the RC VOTE e-mail should contain the KEYS URL.
> Yes, I know I can hunt around and find it, but it should really be
> present to enable the sigs to be checked.
>
KEYS file is at its standard location [1] but I can put this url into
the vote message template if you think it would add value.
Oleg
[1]
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpcomponents/httpclient/KEYS
> [BTW, I now have a shell script which can automatically check sigs
> against a specific KEYS file.
> I can add that to SVN somewhere if it would be of use to others]
>
>
> On 27 June 2014 17:25, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 11:57 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:57 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:19 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Gary Gregory <
> >> > garydgregory@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <
> >> > olegk@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> > > > > >> > Why no site?
> >> > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> *sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Yes, but as part of the release process it would help reviewing
> >> > the RC
> >> > > > by
> >> > > > > > looking at reports.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > For example, how do I know all files have the right license header
> >> > > > without
> >> > > > > a RAT report?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Like, by running RAT against the source dist, no?
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Hm, I consider it part of the RM's duty to create all of these reports.
> >> > >
> >> > > The people how VOTE can inspect the reports...
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > RM's duty based on what? RM's duty is produce release artifacts. Nether
> >> > site content nor reports of any sort are not release artifacts.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I beg to differ. By not producing Maven reports for RAT, FindBugs, PMD,
> >> Surefire and so on, you are making the job of reviewers harder, not easier.
> >> Over at Commons and Logging, we produce a full site with reports as part of
> >> a VOTE.
> >>
> >
> > You are very welcome to do so. However, we have a certain release
> > process, too [1]. You are also very welcome to propose improvements to
> > that process and add things you deem important if they are missing. But
> > pointing out that something has not been done in a _release vote_ is not
> > very constructive, is it? If it is not a blocker, can we discuss it
> > _after_ the vote and actually move on with the vote? If it is a blocker
> > by all of means feel free to vote accordingly.
> >
> > Oleg
> >
> > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/HttpComponents/HttpComponentsReleaseProcess
> >
> >> Is every reviewer going to manually run a Maven RAT report? I doubt it, and
> >> in the case of RAT, it is a crucial part of the process.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Oleg
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help
when reviewing the RC.
Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report.
Also, the RC VOTE e-mail should contain the KEYS URL.
Yes, I know I can hunt around and find it, but it should really be
present to enable the sigs to be checked.
[BTW, I now have a shell script which can automatically check sigs
against a specific KEYS file.
I can add that to SVN somewhere if it would be of use to others]
On 27 June 2014 17:25, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 11:57 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:57 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:19 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Gary Gregory <
>> > garydgregory@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <
>> > olegk@apache.org>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > > > > >> > Why no site?
>> > > > > >> >
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> *sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Yes, but as part of the release process it would help reviewing
>> > the RC
>> > > > by
>> > > > > > looking at reports.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > For example, how do I know all files have the right license header
>> > > > without
>> > > > > a RAT report?
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Like, by running RAT against the source dist, no?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Hm, I consider it part of the RM's duty to create all of these reports.
>> > >
>> > > The people how VOTE can inspect the reports...
>> > >
>> >
>> > RM's duty based on what? RM's duty is produce release artifacts. Nether
>> > site content nor reports of any sort are not release artifacts.
>> >
>>
>> I beg to differ. By not producing Maven reports for RAT, FindBugs, PMD,
>> Surefire and so on, you are making the job of reviewers harder, not easier.
>> Over at Commons and Logging, we produce a full site with reports as part of
>> a VOTE.
>>
>
> You are very welcome to do so. However, we have a certain release
> process, too [1]. You are also very welcome to propose improvements to
> that process and add things you deem important if they are missing. But
> pointing out that something has not been done in a _release vote_ is not
> very constructive, is it? If it is not a blocker, can we discuss it
> _after_ the vote and actually move on with the vote? If it is a blocker
> by all of means feel free to vote accordingly.
>
> Oleg
>
> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/HttpComponents/HttpComponentsReleaseProcess
>
>> Is every reviewer going to manually run a Maven RAT report? I doubt it, and
>> in the case of RAT, it is a crucial part of the process.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Oleg
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 11:57 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:57 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:19 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Gary Gregory <
> > garydgregory@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <
> > olegk@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > > > > >> > Why no site?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> *sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, but as part of the release process it would help reviewing
> > the RC
> > > > by
> > > > > > looking at reports.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, how do I know all files have the right license header
> > > > without
> > > > > a RAT report?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Like, by running RAT against the source dist, no?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hm, I consider it part of the RM's duty to create all of these reports.
> > >
> > > The people how VOTE can inspect the reports...
> > >
> >
> > RM's duty based on what? RM's duty is produce release artifacts. Nether
> > site content nor reports of any sort are not release artifacts.
> >
>
> I beg to differ. By not producing Maven reports for RAT, FindBugs, PMD,
> Surefire and so on, you are making the job of reviewers harder, not easier.
> Over at Commons and Logging, we produce a full site with reports as part of
> a VOTE.
>
You are very welcome to do so. However, we have a certain release
process, too [1]. You are also very welcome to propose improvements to
that process and add things you deem important if they are missing. But
pointing out that something has not been done in a _release vote_ is not
very constructive, is it? If it is not a blocker, can we discuss it
_after_ the vote and actually move on with the vote? If it is a blocker
by all of means feel free to vote accordingly.
Oleg
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/HttpComponents/HttpComponentsReleaseProcess
> Is every reviewer going to manually run a Maven RAT report? I doubt it, and
> in the case of RAT, it is a crucial part of the process.
>
> Gary
>
>
> >
> > Oleg
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:57 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:19 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Gary Gregory <
> garydgregory@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <
> olegk@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > > > >> > Why no site?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> *sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, but as part of the release process it would help reviewing
> the RC
> > > by
> > > > > looking at reports.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > For example, how do I know all files have the right license header
> > > without
> > > > a RAT report?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Like, by running RAT against the source dist, no?
> > >
> >
> > Hm, I consider it part of the RM's duty to create all of these reports.
> >
> > The people how VOTE can inspect the reports...
> >
>
> RM's duty based on what? RM's duty is produce release artifacts. Nether
> site content nor reports of any sort are not release artifacts.
>
I beg to differ. By not producing Maven reports for RAT, FindBugs, PMD,
Surefire and so on, you are making the job of reviewers harder, not easier.
Over at Commons and Logging, we produce a full site with reports as part of
a VOTE.
Is every reviewer going to manually run a Maven RAT report? I doubt it, and
in the case of RAT, it is a crucial part of the process.
Gary
>
> Oleg
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:57 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:19 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > > >> > Why no site?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> *sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but as part of the release process it would help reviewing the RC
> > by
> > > > looking at reports.
> > > >
> > >
> > > For example, how do I know all files have the right license header
> > without
> > > a RAT report?
> > >
> >
> > Like, by running RAT against the source dist, no?
> >
>
> Hm, I consider it part of the RM's duty to create all of these reports.
>
> The people how VOTE can inspect the reports...
>
RM's duty based on what? RM's duty is produce release artifacts. Nether
site content nor reports of any sort are not release artifacts.
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:19 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > >> > Why no site?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> *sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, but as part of the release process it would help reviewing the RC
> by
> > > looking at reports.
> > >
> >
> > For example, how do I know all files have the right license header
> without
> > a RAT report?
> >
>
> Like, by running RAT against the source dist, no?
>
Hm, I consider it part of the RM's duty to create all of these reports.
The people how VOTE can inspect the reports...
Gary
>
> Oleg
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:19 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> > Why no site?
> >> >
> >>
> >> *sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, but as part of the release process it would help reviewing the RC by
> > looking at reports.
> >
>
> For example, how do I know all files have the right license header without
> a RAT report?
>
Like, by running RAT against the source dist, no?
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > Why no site?
>> >
>>
>> *sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts.
>>
>
> Yes, but as part of the release process it would help reviewing the RC by
> looking at reports.
>
For example, how do I know all files have the right license header without
a RAT report?
Gary
>
> Gary
>
>
>>
>> Oleg
>>
>> > Gary
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > [x] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 18:33 +0200, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
>> > > > Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Client
>> > > > 4.4-alpha1. The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only
>> votes
>> > > > from HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at
>> least
>> > > > three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes.
>> > > >
>> > > > Packages:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1
>> > > > revision 5675
>> > > >
>> > > > Release notes:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES-4.4.x.txt
>> > > >
>> > > > Maven artefacts:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-1012/org/apache/httpcomponents/
>> > > >
>> > > > SVN tag:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient/tags/4.4-alpha1-RC1
>> > > > revision 1605416
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > Vote: HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 release
>> > > > [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
>> > > > [ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Speaking of reports. No matter what version of Maven I try, I get an NPE
running "mvn site:stage-deploy -DstagingSiteURL=file:///%HOME%/httpclient"
Thoughts?
Gary
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > Why no site?
>> >
>>
>> *sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts.
>>
>
> Yes, but as part of the release process it would help reviewing the RC by
> looking at reports.
>
> Gary
>
>
>>
>> Oleg
>>
>> > Gary
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > [x] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 18:33 +0200, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
>> > > > Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Client
>> > > > 4.4-alpha1. The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only
>> votes
>> > > > from HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at
>> least
>> > > > three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes.
>> > > >
>> > > > Packages:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1
>> > > > revision 5675
>> > > >
>> > > > Release notes:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES-4.4.x.txt
>> > > >
>> > > > Maven artefacts:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-1012/org/apache/httpcomponents/
>> > > >
>> > > > SVN tag:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient/tags/4.4-alpha1-RC1
>> > > > revision 1605416
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > Vote: HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 release
>> > > > [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
>> > > > [ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Why no site?
> >
>
> *sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts.
>
Yes, but as part of the release process it would help reviewing the RC by
looking at reports.
Gary
>
> Oleg
>
> > Gary
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > [x] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 18:33 +0200, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> > > > Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Client
> > > > 4.4-alpha1. The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only
> votes
> > > > from HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at
> least
> > > > three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes.
> > > >
> > > > Packages:
> > > >
> > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1
> > > > revision 5675
> > > >
> > > > Release notes:
> > > >
> > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES-4.4.x.txt
> > > >
> > > > Maven artefacts:
> > > >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-1012/org/apache/httpcomponents/
> > > >
> > > > SVN tag:
> > > >
> > >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient/tags/4.4-alpha1-RC1
> > > > revision 1605416
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Vote: HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 release
> > > > [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
> > > > [ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Why no site?
>
*sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts.
Oleg
> Gary
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > [x] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1
> >
> > On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 18:33 +0200, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> > > Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Client
> > > 4.4-alpha1. The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only votes
> > > from HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at least
> > > three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes.
> > >
> > > Packages:
> > >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1
> > > revision 5675
> > >
> > > Release notes:
> > >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES-4.4.x.txt
> > >
> > > Maven artefacts:
> > >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-1012/org/apache/httpcomponents/
> > >
> > > SVN tag:
> > >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient/tags/4.4-alpha1-RC1
> > > revision 1605416
> > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Vote: HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 release
> > > [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
> > > [ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Why no site?
Gary
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> [x] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1
>
> On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 18:33 +0200, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> > Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Client
> > 4.4-alpha1. The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only votes
> > from HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at least
> > three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes.
> >
> > Packages:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1
> > revision 5675
> >
> > Release notes:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES-4.4.x.txt
> >
> > Maven artefacts:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-1012/org/apache/httpcomponents/
> >
> > SVN tag:
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient/tags/4.4-alpha1-RC1
> > revision 1605416
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Vote: HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 release
> > [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
> > [ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Not showstoppers but should be fixed:
16 warnings
[WARNING] Javadoc Warnings
[WARNING] warning: [options] bootstrap class path not set in conjunction
with -source 1.6
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient\src\main\java\org\apache\http\client\methods\HttpRequestWrapper.java:130:
warning - @Since is an unknown tag -- same as a known tag except for case.
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\conn\PoolingHttpClientConnectionManager.java:95:
warning - Tag @link: malformed:
"#PoolingHttpClientConnectionManager(HttpClientConnectionOp
erator, HttpConnectionFactory, long, TimeUnit))"
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\conn\PoolingHttpClientConnectionManager.java:95:
warning - Tag @link: reference not found:
#PoolingHttpClientConnectionManager(HttpClientCon
nectionOperator, HttpConnectionFactory, long, TimeUnit))
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient-win\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\auth\win\WindowsNegotiateScheme.java:215:
warning - Tag @see:illegal character: "58" in "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows
/desktop/aa375506(v=vs.85).aspx"
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient-win\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\auth\win\WindowsNegotiateScheme.java:215:
warning - Tag @see:illegal character: "47" in "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows
/desktop/aa375506(v=vs.85).aspx"
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient-win\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\auth\win\WindowsNegotiateScheme.java:215:
warning - Tag @see:illegal character: "47" in "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows
/desktop/aa375506(v=vs.85).aspx"
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient-win\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\auth\win\WindowsNegotiateScheme.java:215:
warning - Tag @see:illegal character: "47" in "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows
/desktop/aa375506(v=vs.85).aspx"
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient-win\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\auth\win\WindowsNegotiateScheme.java:215:
warning - Tag @see:illegal character: "45" in "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows
/desktop/aa375506(v=vs.85).aspx"
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient-win\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\auth\win\WindowsNegotiateScheme.java:215:
warning - Tag @see:illegal character: "47" in "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows
/desktop/aa375506(v=vs.85).aspx"
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient-win\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\auth\win\WindowsNegotiateScheme.java:215:
warning - Tag @see:illegal character: "47" in "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows
/desktop/aa375506(v=vs.85).aspx"
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient-win\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\auth\win\WindowsNegotiateScheme.java:215:
warning - Tag @see:illegal character: "47" in "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows
/desktop/aa375506(v=vs.85).aspx"
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient-win\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\auth\win\WindowsNegotiateScheme.java:215:
warning - Tag @see:illegal character: "47" in "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows
/desktop/aa375506(v=vs.85).aspx"
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient-win\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\auth\win\WindowsNegotiateScheme.java:215:
warning - Tag @see:illegal character: "61" in "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows
/desktop/aa375506(v=vs.85).aspx"
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient-win\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\auth\win\WindowsNegotiateScheme.java:215:
warning - Tag @see: missing '#': "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa37
5506(v=vs.85).aspx"
[WARNING]
C:\temp\rc\httpcomponents-client-4.4-alpha1\httpclient-win\src\main\java\org\apache\http\impl\auth\win\WindowsNegotiateScheme.java:215:
warning - Tag @see: can't find
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa37550
6(v=vs.85).aspx in org.apache.http.impl.auth.win.WindowsNegotiateScheme
Tested with:
Apache Maven 3.2.2 (45f7c06d68e745d05611f7fd14efb6594181933e;
2014-06-17T09:51:42-04:00)
Maven home: C:\Java\apache-maven-3.2.2
Java version: 1.7.0_60, vendor: Oracle Corporation
Java home: C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.7.0_60\jre
Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: Cp1252
OS name: "windows 7", version: "6.1", arch: "amd64", family: "windows"
Gary
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> [x] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1
>
> On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 18:33 +0200, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> > Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Client
> > 4.4-alpha1. The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only votes
> > from HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at least
> > three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes.
> >
> > Packages:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1
> > revision 5675
> >
> > Release notes:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES-4.4.x.txt
> >
> > Maven artefacts:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-1012/org/apache/httpcomponents/
> >
> > SVN tag:
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient/tags/4.4-alpha1-RC1
> > revision 1605416
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Vote: HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 release
> > [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
> > [ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Francois-Xavier Bonnet <fr...@centraliens.net>.
[x] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
[ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
2014-06-27 9:57 GMT+02:00 Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>:
> [x] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1
>
> On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 18:33 +0200, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> > Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Client
> > 4.4-alpha1. The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only votes
> > from HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at least
> > three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes.
> >
> > Packages:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1
> > revision 5675
> >
> > Release notes:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES-4.4.x.txt
> >
> > Maven artefacts:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-1012/org/apache/httpcomponents/
> >
> > SVN tag:
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient/tags/4.4-alpha1-RC1
> > revision 1605416
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Vote: HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 release
> > [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
> > [ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
[x] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1
On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 18:33 +0200, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Client
> 4.4-alpha1. The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only votes
> from HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at least
> three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes.
>
> Packages:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1
> revision 5675
>
> Release notes:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES-4.4.x.txt
>
> Maven artefacts:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-1012/org/apache/httpcomponents/
>
> SVN tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient/tags/4.4-alpha1-RC1
> revision 1605416
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Vote: HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 release
> [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
> [ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 based on RC1
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Well. Interesting discussions aside, i've had a look and give this a +1 to
release.
...ant
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Client
> 4.4-alpha1. The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only votes
> from HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at least
> three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes.
>
> Packages:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1
> revision 5675
>
> Release notes:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpclient-4.4-alpha1-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES-4.4.x.txt
>
> Maven artefacts:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-1012/org/apache/httpcomponents/
>
> SVN tag:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpclient/tags/4.4-alpha1-RC1
> revision 1605416
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Vote: HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1 release
> [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Client 4.4-alpha1.
> [ ] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason).
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org
>
>