You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@logging.apache.org by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> on 2018/01/20 05:23:37 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Chainsaw 2.0.0-rc1
I finally looked at this. I pushed a change to app assembler config
to make the bin directory executable, and updated HOWTOBUILD to
mention you need to run mvn site:site first.
Can we resin?
On 11/13/17, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another thing I noticed is that the downloads page needs to be updated to
> link to the (future) dist URLs instead of ones in the site's directory (no
> proper mirroring in the old links).
>
> On 12 November 2017 at 19:25, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't recall why - it was a while back :)
>>
>> Yes, I think 2.1.0-rc1 would make sense, once we fix the /bin directory
>> issue.
>>
>> On 11/12/17, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 12 November 2017 at 13:53, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> That's right -forgot we rev'd to 2.1 internally (info.plist, release
>> >> notes, couple other places).
>> >>
>> >
>> > Any particular reason?
>> >
>> >
>> >> Would it be easiest to release the new version as 2.1.0.0 instead of
>> >> 2.0.0-rc1? Otherwise I could downgrade 2.1 refs, we never had an
>> >> official release with that rev.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I could re-roll as 2.1.0-rc1 (or rc2?). I chose 2.0.0 since there's no
>> tags
>> > or releases for any 2.x release at all, so it seemed like a logical
>> > starting point.
>> >
>> > And thanks for testing! We should be able to clean up for a proper 2.x
>> > release. :)
>> >
>> > --
>> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Chainsaw 2.0.0-rc1
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
This vote is cancelled and is superseded by the vote for 2.0.0-rc2.
On 20 January 2018 at 11:40, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure
>
> On Jan 20, 2018 9:04 AM, "Matt Sicker" <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be 2.0.0-rc2? Also, good timing: I can cut a new RC in the
> next
> > few hours.
> >
> > On 20 January 2018 at 09:47, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Matt, would you mind re-spinning a new build at 2.1.0-rc1?
> > >
> > > On 1/19/18, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I finally looked at this. I pushed a change to app assembler config
> > > > to make the bin directory executable, and updated HOWTOBUILD to
> > > > mention you need to run mvn site:site first.
> > > >
> > > > Can we resin?
> > > >
> > > > On 11/13/17, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Another thing I noticed is that the downloads page needs to be
> updated
> > > to
> > > >> link to the (future) dist URLs instead of ones in the site's
> directory
> > > >> (no
> > > >> proper mirroring in the old links).
> > > >>
> > > >> On 12 November 2017 at 19:25, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I don't recall why - it was a while back :)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, I think 2.1.0-rc1 would make sense, once we fix the /bin
> > directory
> > > >>> issue.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 11/12/17, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> > On 12 November 2017 at 13:53, Scott Deboy <scott.deboy@gmail.com
> >
> > > >>> > wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >> That's right -forgot we rev'd to 2.1 internally (info.plist,
> > release
> > > >>> >> notes, couple other places).
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Any particular reason?
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >> Would it be easiest to release the new version as 2.1.0.0
> instead
> > of
> > > >>> >> 2.0.0-rc1? Otherwise I could downgrade 2.1 refs, we never had
> an
> > > >>> >> official release with that rev.
> > > >>> >>
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I could re-roll as 2.1.0-rc1 (or rc2?). I chose 2.0.0 since
> there's
> > > no
> > > >>> tags
> > > >>> > or releases for any 2.x release at all, so it seemed like a
> logical
> > > >>> > starting point.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > And thanks for testing! We should be able to clean up for a
> proper
> > > 2.x
> > > >>> > release. :)
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > --
> > > >>> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Chainsaw 2.0.0-rc1
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
Sure
On Jan 20, 2018 9:04 AM, "Matt Sicker" <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be 2.0.0-rc2? Also, good timing: I can cut a new RC in the next
> few hours.
>
> On 20 January 2018 at 09:47, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Matt, would you mind re-spinning a new build at 2.1.0-rc1?
> >
> > On 1/19/18, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I finally looked at this. I pushed a change to app assembler config
> > > to make the bin directory executable, and updated HOWTOBUILD to
> > > mention you need to run mvn site:site first.
> > >
> > > Can we resin?
> > >
> > > On 11/13/17, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Another thing I noticed is that the downloads page needs to be updated
> > to
> > >> link to the (future) dist URLs instead of ones in the site's directory
> > >> (no
> > >> proper mirroring in the old links).
> > >>
> > >> On 12 November 2017 at 19:25, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I don't recall why - it was a while back :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, I think 2.1.0-rc1 would make sense, once we fix the /bin
> directory
> > >>> issue.
> > >>>
> > >>> On 11/12/17, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > On 12 November 2017 at 13:53, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> That's right -forgot we rev'd to 2.1 internally (info.plist,
> release
> > >>> >> notes, couple other places).
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Any particular reason?
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> Would it be easiest to release the new version as 2.1.0.0 instead
> of
> > >>> >> 2.0.0-rc1? Otherwise I could downgrade 2.1 refs, we never had an
> > >>> >> official release with that rev.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I could re-roll as 2.1.0-rc1 (or rc2?). I chose 2.0.0 since there's
> > no
> > >>> tags
> > >>> > or releases for any 2.x release at all, so it seemed like a logical
> > >>> > starting point.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > And thanks for testing! We should be able to clean up for a proper
> > 2.x
> > >>> > release. :)
> > >>> >
> > >>> > --
> > >>> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Chainsaw 2.0.0-rc1
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
Wouldn't it be 2.0.0-rc2? Also, good timing: I can cut a new RC in the next
few hours.
On 20 January 2018 at 09:47, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matt, would you mind re-spinning a new build at 2.1.0-rc1?
>
> On 1/19/18, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I finally looked at this. I pushed a change to app assembler config
> > to make the bin directory executable, and updated HOWTOBUILD to
> > mention you need to run mvn site:site first.
> >
> > Can we resin?
> >
> > On 11/13/17, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Another thing I noticed is that the downloads page needs to be updated
> to
> >> link to the (future) dist URLs instead of ones in the site's directory
> >> (no
> >> proper mirroring in the old links).
> >>
> >> On 12 November 2017 at 19:25, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't recall why - it was a while back :)
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I think 2.1.0-rc1 would make sense, once we fix the /bin directory
> >>> issue.
> >>>
> >>> On 11/12/17, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > On 12 November 2017 at 13:53, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> That's right -forgot we rev'd to 2.1 internally (info.plist, release
> >>> >> notes, couple other places).
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > Any particular reason?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> Would it be easiest to release the new version as 2.1.0.0 instead of
> >>> >> 2.0.0-rc1? Otherwise I could downgrade 2.1 refs, we never had an
> >>> >> official release with that rev.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > I could re-roll as 2.1.0-rc1 (or rc2?). I chose 2.0.0 since there's
> no
> >>> tags
> >>> > or releases for any 2.x release at all, so it seemed like a logical
> >>> > starting point.
> >>> >
> >>> > And thanks for testing! We should be able to clean up for a proper
> 2.x
> >>> > release. :)
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Chainsaw 2.0.0-rc1
Posted by Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>.
Matt, would you mind re-spinning a new build at 2.1.0-rc1?
On 1/19/18, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I finally looked at this. I pushed a change to app assembler config
> to make the bin directory executable, and updated HOWTOBUILD to
> mention you need to run mvn site:site first.
>
> Can we resin?
>
> On 11/13/17, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Another thing I noticed is that the downloads page needs to be updated to
>> link to the (future) dist URLs instead of ones in the site's directory
>> (no
>> proper mirroring in the old links).
>>
>> On 12 November 2017 at 19:25, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't recall why - it was a while back :)
>>>
>>> Yes, I think 2.1.0-rc1 would make sense, once we fix the /bin directory
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> On 11/12/17, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On 12 November 2017 at 13:53, Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> That's right -forgot we rev'd to 2.1 internally (info.plist, release
>>> >> notes, couple other places).
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Any particular reason?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Would it be easiest to release the new version as 2.1.0.0 instead of
>>> >> 2.0.0-rc1? Otherwise I could downgrade 2.1 refs, we never had an
>>> >> official release with that rev.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > I could re-roll as 2.1.0-rc1 (or rc2?). I chose 2.0.0 since there's no
>>> tags
>>> > or releases for any 2.x release at all, so it seemed like a logical
>>> > starting point.
>>> >
>>> > And thanks for testing! We should be able to clean up for a proper 2.x
>>> > release. :)
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>