You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> on 2013/09/14 18:09:05 UTC
Issues in Apache Taglibs 1.2.0-RC1
On Aug 7, 2013, at 4:41 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 August 2013 20:32, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>> A proposed release candidate Apache Taglibs 1.2.0-RC1 is now available for voting.
>>
>> This is release candidate for an implementation of JSTL 1.2 and can be obtained from the staging repo at:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomcat-053/
>>
>> The source distribution can be obtained from:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomcat-053/org/apache/taglibs/taglibs-standard/1.2.0-RC1/
>>
>> The proposed 1.2.0-RC1 candidate is:
>> [X] Broken - do not release
>> [ ] Alpha - can be released as 1.2.0-RC1 alpha
>>
>> This is the first release in a long time, and the first since switching to Maven. If there are issues, please list all concerns so they can be addressed.
>
> Please include the SVN tag and revision number in all vote e-mails.
>
> Otherwise it's not possible to check provenance of the the source files.
> Nor can one check if there are files missing from the source archive
> (or accidentally added).
>
> A link to the KEYS file should also be included so the sigs can be checked.
>
> ==
>
> The NOTICE file says:
>>>>
> Apache Tomcat Standard Taglib
> Copyright 2001-2012 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This product includes software developed by
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> <<<
>
> The year should possibly be updated to 2013.
>
> "developed by" MUST be changed to "developed at"
>
> The NOTICE files in the META-INF jar directories don't have the full
> name of the component. The name must include the "Apache Tomcat
> Standard Taglib" prefix. However, the NOTICE files do say "developed
> at".
>
> There are several files without AL headers.
>
> Several source files contain the SVN tag $Date$.
> This is generated using the local timezone, so the source archive will
> be different depending where it is generated. Best to avoid $Date$; if
> you want a date, use $Id$ instead, though $Revision$ should be
> sufficient.
>
> The source archive top-level directory includes the suffix RC1; that is unusual.
>
> The file JSTLVariableStackTest.java does not have svn:eolstyle native set.
> The file ParamSupport.java is marked as executable in SVN props.
I think addressed those issues in the following changes:
http://svn.apache.org/r1512150
http://svn.apache.org/r1512151
http://svn.apache.org/r1512153
http://svn.apache.org/r1512158
http://svn.apache.org/r1512166
http://svn.apache.org/r1512172
except for the "several files without AL headers." I'll look to see which those are but pointers would help.
After those changes do you see any additional problems?
Thanks
Jeremy
Re: Issues in Apache Taglibs 1.2.0-RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 18 September 2013 08:01, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2013, at 4:49 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14 September 2013 17:09, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think addressed those issues in the following changes:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/r1512150
>>> http://svn.apache.org/r1512151
>>> http://svn.apache.org/r1512153
>>> http://svn.apache.org/r1512158
>>
>> BTW, there was no need to drop @version entirely; it was only the
>> $Date$ part that causes problems.
>
> They had been removed from the rest of the codebase previously; I did that to match.
>
>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/r1512166
>>> http://svn.apache.org/r1512172
>>
>> Those changes look OK at first glance.
>>
>>> except for the "several files without AL headers." I'll look to see which those are but pointers would help.
>>
>> I just ran RAT.
>> Sorry, but I did not keep the report.
>
> I see RAT has a Maven plugin - would it make sense to add that to the release profile for the project?
That should probably be the subject of a new mail thread.
> Thanks
> Jeremy
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Issues in Apache Taglibs 1.2.0-RC1
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Sep 15, 2013, at 4:49 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 September 2013 17:09, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think addressed those issues in the following changes:
>> http://svn.apache.org/r1512150
>> http://svn.apache.org/r1512151
>> http://svn.apache.org/r1512153
>> http://svn.apache.org/r1512158
>
> BTW, there was no need to drop @version entirely; it was only the
> $Date$ part that causes problems.
They had been removed from the rest of the codebase previously; I did that to match.
>
>> http://svn.apache.org/r1512166
>> http://svn.apache.org/r1512172
>
> Those changes look OK at first glance.
>
>> except for the "several files without AL headers." I'll look to see which those are but pointers would help.
>
> I just ran RAT.
> Sorry, but I did not keep the report.
I see RAT has a Maven plugin - would it make sense to add that to the release profile for the project?
Thanks
Jeremy
Re: Issues in Apache Taglibs 1.2.0-RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 14 September 2013 17:09, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2013, at 4:41 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 August 2013 20:32, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> A proposed release candidate Apache Taglibs 1.2.0-RC1 is now available for voting.
>>>
>>> This is release candidate for an implementation of JSTL 1.2 and can be obtained from the staging repo at:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomcat-053/
>>>
>>> The source distribution can be obtained from:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomcat-053/org/apache/taglibs/taglibs-standard/1.2.0-RC1/
>>>
>>> The proposed 1.2.0-RC1 candidate is:
>>> [X] Broken - do not release
>>> [ ] Alpha - can be released as 1.2.0-RC1 alpha
>>>
>>> This is the first release in a long time, and the first since switching to Maven. If there are issues, please list all concerns so they can be addressed.
>>
>> Please include the SVN tag and revision number in all vote e-mails.
>>
>> Otherwise it's not possible to check provenance of the the source files.
>> Nor can one check if there are files missing from the source archive
>> (or accidentally added).
>>
>> A link to the KEYS file should also be included so the sigs can be checked.
>>
>> ==
>>
>> The NOTICE file says:
>>>>>
>> Apache Tomcat Standard Taglib
>> Copyright 2001-2012 The Apache Software Foundation
>>
>> This product includes software developed by
>> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>> <<<
>>
>> The year should possibly be updated to 2013.
>>
>> "developed by" MUST be changed to "developed at"
>>
>> The NOTICE files in the META-INF jar directories don't have the full
>> name of the component. The name must include the "Apache Tomcat
>> Standard Taglib" prefix. However, the NOTICE files do say "developed
>> at".
>>
>> There are several files without AL headers.
>>
>> Several source files contain the SVN tag $Date$.
>> This is generated using the local timezone, so the source archive will
>> be different depending where it is generated. Best to avoid $Date$; if
>> you want a date, use $Id$ instead, though $Revision$ should be
>> sufficient.
>>
>> The source archive top-level directory includes the suffix RC1; that is unusual.
>>
>> The file JSTLVariableStackTest.java does not have svn:eolstyle native set.
>> The file ParamSupport.java is marked as executable in SVN props.
>
> I think addressed those issues in the following changes:
> http://svn.apache.org/r1512150
> http://svn.apache.org/r1512151
> http://svn.apache.org/r1512153
> http://svn.apache.org/r1512158
BTW, there was no need to drop @version entirely; it was only the
$Date$ part that causes problems.
> http://svn.apache.org/r1512166
> http://svn.apache.org/r1512172
Those changes look OK at first glance.
> except for the "several files without AL headers." I'll look to see which those are but pointers would help.
I just ran RAT.
Sorry, but I did not keep the report.
> After those changes do you see any additional problems?
Not sure without an RC.
> Thanks
> Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org