You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@river.apache.org by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> on 2007/12/21 22:13:05 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-river-2.1.1-incubating
Hi,
+1, impressive work!
Checked the signatures and checksums. Browsed through and ran RAT on
the release packages. Compiled the sources. No problems.
As a minor remark, it would have been good to have the Incubator
disclaimer already in the top-level index.html files within the
release packages, but it's not that big a deal since the disclaimer
can still be found in the release notes.
Also, when taking the release to the Incubator list for approval,
remember to mention the earlier discussion on why we're releasing code
under the com.sun.jini and com.artima packages. Otherwise people will
get confused.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-river-2.1.1-incubating
Posted by Frank Barnaby <Fr...@Sun.COM>.
On Dec 23, 2007, at 16:38, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote:
>>
>> To be clear, the classes and jars both build fine by using the
>> "all" and "jars" ant targets. The javadoc no longer builds for the
>> end user because of the addition of the url pointing to the NOTICE
>> file to allow for stand-alone javadoc distributions. The release
>> zip files also cannot be generated through the use of the
>> "build.release" target. While the javadoc should build for the end
>> user, we never intended the end user to build release bundles.
>> However, I think it looks bad to have a build target that fails for
>> the end user--I agree that we should either fix it or remove it
>> from the end user build scripts.
>>
>> By fixing the javadoc end-user build, the release build will be
>> fixed as well. The fix will require me to add the NOTICE and
>> LICENSE files to the source sub-directory in the source
>> distribution. Note that the source distribution already contains
>> the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the top level, but the doc and
>> release builds are not aware of those top-level files. After
>> committing the changes, I'll generate another release, another set
>> of corresponding signature and check-sum files, upload the files to
>> people-apache.org, some folks can do some sanity tests, and we can
>> start another vote. Did I overlook any steps?
>>
>> Is this course of action we want to pursue?
>
> Does this course of action address Niclas's issue below?
Adding a disclaimer file is simple enough, so we could include it as
well.
Frank
>
>
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Mark Brouwer wrote:
>> I think we shouldn't release a source distribution that doesn't
>> actually
>> build. But before voting I would like to know whether we can fix this
>> issue after we approved the release and before presenting a
>> distribution
>> to Incubator. I hope so because I don't want to spoil the party.
>
> What the PMC votes on are the signed distribution artifacts so to
> change any bit requires another spin and another vote.
>
>
> Craig
>
>> --
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> Frank
>>
> On Dec 22, 2007, at 12:46 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 22 December 2007 05:13, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>> As a minor remark, it would have been good to have the Incubator
>>> disclaimer already in the top-level index.html files within the
>>> release packages, but it's not that big a deal since the disclaimer
>>> can still be found in the release notes.
>>
>> I think others in the Incubator PMC might be of a different
>> opinion. Once the
>> Tar ball is exploded, it is no longer obvious that it is Incubating
>> project
>> you are dealing with.
>>
>> I think Wicket[1] set some good examples;
>>
>> - Put DISCLAIMER file in the root of the two tar balls. (That is
>> enough
>> for me to approve this release.)
>>
>> - Top level directory inside the tar ball to retain the fully
>> versioned name,
>> which includes the disclaimer. (Would like to see that in any
>> future
>> releases.)
>>
>>
>> Otherwise, everything looks cool to me...
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> http://people.apache.org/dist/incubator/wicket/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-beta1/dist/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-beta1.tar.gz
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> --
>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>>
>> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
>> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
>> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-river-2.1.1-incubating
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi All,
On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote:
>
> To be clear, the classes and jars both build fine by using the
> "all" and "jars" ant targets. The javadoc no longer builds for the
> end user because of the addition of the url pointing to the NOTICE
> file to allow for stand-alone javadoc distributions. The release
> zip files also cannot be generated through the use of the
> "build.release" target. While the javadoc should build for the end
> user, we never intended the end user to build release bundles.
> However, I think it looks bad to have a build target that fails for
> the end user--I agree that we should either fix it or remove it
> from the end user build scripts.
>
> By fixing the javadoc end-user build, the release build will be
> fixed as well. The fix will require me to add the NOTICE and
> LICENSE files to the source sub-directory in the source
> distribution. Note that the source distribution already contains
> the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the top level, but the doc and
> release builds are not aware of those top-level files. After
> committing the changes, I'll generate another release, another set
> of corresponding signature and check-sum files, upload the files to
> people-apache.org, some folks can do some sanity tests, and we can
> start another vote. Did I overlook any steps?
>
> Is this course of action we want to pursue?
Does this course of action address Niclas's issue below?
On Dec 23, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Mark Brouwer wrote:
> I think we shouldn't release a source distribution that doesn't
> actually
> build. But before voting I would like to know whether we can fix this
> issue after we approved the release and before presenting a
> distribution
> to Incubator. I hope so because I don't want to spoil the party.
What the PMC votes on are the signed distribution artifacts so to
change any bit requires another spin and another vote.
Craig
> --
> Mark
>
>
>
> Frank
>
On Dec 22, 2007, at 12:46 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Saturday 22 December 2007 05:13, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> As a minor remark, it would have been good to have the Incubator
>> disclaimer already in the top-level index.html files within the
>> release packages, but it's not that big a deal since the disclaimer
>> can still be found in the release notes.
>
> I think others in the Incubator PMC might be of a different
> opinion. Once the
> Tar ball is exploded, it is no longer obvious that it is Incubating
> project
> you are dealing with.
>
> I think Wicket[1] set some good examples;
>
> - Put DISCLAIMER file in the root of the two tar balls. (That is
> enough
> for me to approve this release.)
>
> - Top level directory inside the tar ball to retain the fully
> versioned name,
> which includes the disclaimer. (Would like to see that in any
> future
> releases.)
>
>
> Otherwise, everything looks cool to me...
>
>
> [1]
> http://people.apache.org/dist/incubator/wicket/apache-wicket-1.3.0-
> incubating-beta1/dist/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-beta1.tar.gz
>
>
> Cheers
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-river-2.1.1-incubating
Posted by Jim Hurley <Ji...@Sun.COM>.
Thanks for the feedback, Niclas.
With the holidays it is going to be hard to respin the release.
Therefore, I'd like to continue with the vote process (note: anyone
in the River/Jini community is invited to submit a vote) and see
how things work out.
Happy holidays to all!
-Jim
On Dec 22, 2007, at 3:46 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Saturday 22 December 2007 05:13, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> As a minor remark, it would have been good to have the Incubator
>> disclaimer already in the top-level index.html files within the
>> release packages, but it's not that big a deal since the disclaimer
>> can still be found in the release notes.
>
> I think others in the Incubator PMC might be of a different
> opinion. Once the
> Tar ball is exploded, it is no longer obvious that it is Incubating
> project
> you are dealing with.
>
> I think Wicket[1] set some good examples;
>
> - Put DISCLAIMER file in the root of the two tar balls. (That is
> enough
> for me to approve this release.)
>
> - Top level directory inside the tar ball to retain the fully
> versioned name,
> which includes the disclaimer. (Would like to see that in any
> future
> releases.)
>
>
> Otherwise, everything looks cool to me...
>
>
> [1]
> http://people.apache.org/dist/incubator/wicket/apache-wicket-1.3.0-
> incubating-beta1/dist/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-beta1.tar.gz
>
>
> Cheers
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-river-2.1.1-incubating
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Saturday 22 December 2007 05:13, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> As a minor remark, it would have been good to have the Incubator
> disclaimer already in the top-level index.html files within the
> release packages, but it's not that big a deal since the disclaimer
> can still be found in the release notes.
I think others in the Incubator PMC might be of a different opinion. Once the
Tar ball is exploded, it is no longer obvious that it is Incubating project
you are dealing with.
I think Wicket[1] set some good examples;
- Put DISCLAIMER file in the root of the two tar balls. (That is enough
for me to approve this release.)
- Top level directory inside the tar ball to retain the fully versioned name,
which includes the disclaimer. (Would like to see that in any future
releases.)
Otherwise, everything looks cool to me...
[1]
http://people.apache.org/dist/incubator/wicket/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-beta1/dist/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-beta1.tar.gz
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-river-2.1.1-incubating
Posted by Jim Hurley <Ji...@Sun.COM>.
On Dec 21, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1, impressive work!
>
> Checked the signatures and checksums. Browsed through and ran RAT on
> the release packages. Compiled the sources. No problems.
Thanks for all the help and insight, Jukka. Appreciate you
looking at the release and responding.
> As a minor remark, it would have been good to have the Incubator
> disclaimer already in the top-level index.html files within the
> release packages, but it's not that big a deal since the disclaimer
> can still be found in the release notes.
Good point - we'll make that change next time.
> Also, when taking the release to the Incubator list for approval,
> remember to mention the earlier discussion on why we're releasing code
> under the com.sun.jini and com.artima packages. Otherwise people will
> get confused.
Will do. Thanks again.
-Jim
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-river-2.1.1-incubating
Posted by Brian Murphy <bt...@gmail.com>.
[X] +1 release candidate apache-river-2.1.1-incubating is ready and can
be released