You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> on 2010/03/16 15:52:55 UTC
[VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Hi,
Calling this again due to a typo and
removing site and dormant subcomponents from the
source distribution.
We had 1.0.2 release last month and now 1.0.3 solves
few minor bug fixes and adds couple of new features.
Some of the old files not having ASL license header
were updated, although some machine generated are left intact.
Also the site is no longer part of the source distribution
as well as unmaintained monisvc sources which will be
removed from the SVN completely.
The release is available for testing at:
http://people.apache.org/~mturk/daemon/
The SVN tag is:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/daemon/tags/COMMONS_DAEMON_1_0_3_RC2
(If voted will be renamed to COMMONS_DAEMON_1_0_3)
So here is the vote:
[ ] +1
[ ] =0
[ ] -1
Vote is open for 72 hours.
Regards
--
^TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
On 03/17/2010 06:40 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> The purpose of multiple archives is to allow
>> users to choose their preferred unarchiver.
>>
>
> It therefore follows that the presumption that the files in zip
> archives must have LF line endings is wrong.
>
Nope. It presumes that the sources will be buildable
on all platforms. That's what I'm concerned about.
I just don't care if the users will have to use
the wordpad instead notepad on windoze.
If you think that there is absolute must that
README will be visible in notepad, make it
CRLF in all archives. On unix no one cares, cause
any viewer will handle that.
> It also follows that it is wrong to assume that tar.gz files are not
> targetted at Windows.
>
Exactly, that's why even tar.gz has DOS line endings for windows/**
>> Unless the archive is explicitly named
>> as *-win32-src.zip (take a look at httpd and apr)
>> different line ending are actually wrong.
>
> Not sure what you mean by different line ending here - different from what?
>
Between .tar.gz and .zip
> commons-1.0.3-bin-windows.zip is explicitly for windows, yet does not
> have DOS endings.
>
Those files are manually created anyhow. Feel free to repack them
with DOS line endings. I don't care.
Regards
--
^TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 17/03/2010, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 03/17/2010 04:56 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> > On 17/03/2010, Mladen Turk<mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > But that is exactly how it's done now.
> > > Please double check the .zip file. Windows dir *has* DOS line endings.
> > >
> >
> > But the N&L files don't have DOS EOLs.
> >
> >
>
>
> Presumption that .zip file MUST be targeted
> for windows and thus having CRLF line endings
> is completely wrong.
>
> The purpose of multiple archives is to allow
> users to choose their preferred unarchiver.
>
It therefore follows that the presumption that the files in zip
archives must have LF line endings is wrong.
It also follows that it is wrong to assume that tar.gz files are not
targetted at Windows.
> Unless the archive is explicitly named
> as *-win32-src.zip (take a look at httpd and apr)
> different line ending are actually wrong.
Not sure what you mean by different line ending here - different from what?
commons-1.0.3-bin-windows.zip is explicitly for windows, yet does not
have DOS endings.
> What is relevant is that files that are
> required to have OS line endings have them.
Agreed; I'm not proposing that this be changed.
>
>
> Regards
> --
> ^TM
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
On 03/17/2010 04:56 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 17/03/2010, Mladen Turk<mt...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> But that is exactly how it's done now.
>> Please double check the .zip file. Windows dir *has* DOS line endings.
>
> But the N&L files don't have DOS EOLs.
>
Presumption that .zip file MUST be targeted
for windows and thus having CRLF line endings
is completely wrong.
The purpose of multiple archives is to allow
users to choose their preferred unarchiver.
Unless the archive is explicitly named
as *-win32-src.zip (take a look at httpd and apr)
different line ending are actually wrong.
What is relevant is that files that are
required to have OS line endings have them.
Regards
--
^TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 17/03/2010, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 03/17/2010 12:26 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > -1. .zip is usable on platforms having broken tar like Solaris.
> > > The files in windows/directory have CRLF
> > >
> >
> > Seems to me that this is penalising Windows users for bugs on other OSes.
> >
> > Having the wrong EOLs on Windows makes it difficult to read the text
> > files, because they tend to show up as a single long line.
> >
> >
>
> Only if you use notepad.
> Anyone interested in compiling sources will probably
> use more advanced editor.
>
>
> >
> > Obviously, files that are intended only for use on Unix should still
> > have EOL=LF.
> > Should be quite easy in this case, as the source files are in
> > different parts of the directory tree.
> >
> >
>
> But that is exactly how it's done now.
> Please double check the .zip file. Windows dir *has* DOS line endings.
But the N&L files don't have DOS EOLs.
This is so even in the bin-windows.zip file which is *only* usable on Windows.
Surely that should use DOS EOLs.
However, I was mainly referring to the Java binary and source zip archives.
>
>
> Regards
> --
> ^TM
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
On 03/17/2010 12:26 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> -1. .zip is usable on platforms having broken tar like Solaris.
>> The files in windows/directory have CRLF
>
> Seems to me that this is penalising Windows users for bugs on other OSes.
>
> Having the wrong EOLs on Windows makes it difficult to read the text
> files, because they tend to show up as a single long line.
>
Only if you use notepad.
Anyone interested in compiling sources will probably
use more advanced editor.
>
> Obviously, files that are intended only for use on Unix should still
> have EOL=LF.
> Should be quite easy in this case, as the source files are in
> different parts of the directory tree.
>
But that is exactly how it's done now.
Please double check the .zip file. Windows dir *has* DOS line endings.
Regards
--
^TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 16/03/2010, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 05:22 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> >
> > The KEYS file is a bit old, but I assume it won't actually be used.
> >
> > Also, the source/ directory still has the 1.0.2 version in it, which
> > confused me a bit.
> >
> >
>
> This has nothing to do with a release.
> It's a folder README. fixed anyhow
>
>
>
> > The source/ dir also has a set of 1.0.3 binaries, however these are
> > not the same as the identically named files in
> > http://people.apache.org/~mturk/daemon/binaries/1.0.3/
> >
> >
>
> Again wrong upload. fixed.
>
>
>
> > Is the code going to be released to Maven? If so, where are the artefacts?
> >
> >
>
> Nope.
>
>
> > It would be nice if the zip archives used CRLF line endings
> >
> >
>
> -1. .zip is usable on platforms having broken tar like Solaris.
> The files in windows/directory have CRLF
Seems to me that this is penalising Windows users for bugs on other OSes.
Having the wrong EOLs on Windows makes it difficult to read the text
files, because they tend to show up as a single long line.
However, having an additional CR at EOL in Unix-like systems just
makes the file look a bit messy in an editor, and is generally
perfectly usable.
Obviously, files that are intended only for use on Unix should still
have EOL=LF.
Should be quite easy in this case, as the source files are in
different parts of the directory tree.
>
> >
> > It's difficult to reconcile the archives with the SVN tag, as the
> > directory structure is rather different. Is it necessary to use a
> > different structure? In particular, SVN uses the directory name "nt"
> > whereas the archives use "windows", which is very confusing.
> >
> >
>
> This is intentional. In future the nt will be renamed to
> windows in SVN as well.
>
>
> > Also, there's no details of how to build the native code in the archive
> itself.
> >
>
> Has nothing to do with a release process.
> Someone will have to write that.
>
>
>
> Regards
> --
> ^TM
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Posted by Bill Barker <bi...@verizon.net>.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Mladen Turk" <mt...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:45 AM
To: <de...@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
> On 03/16/2010 07:17 PM, ebb wrote:
>>
>> There's a problem with the Manifests in the source and javadoc jars.
>>
>> They have:
>> Implementation-Vendor-Id: commons-daemon
>>
>> but that should be:
>> Implementation-Vendor-Id: org.apache
>>
>
> This is really getting annoying.
>
> I really don't wish to do another release
> just so you can exercise your ability to find that
> letter A should be a letter B and put -1 for 10th time.
>
> You are free to fix anything you think is wrong,
> and propose a release.
>
+1
>
> Regards
> --
> ^TM
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
On 03/16/2010 07:17 PM, ebb wrote:
>
> There's a problem with the Manifests in the source and javadoc jars.
>
> They have:
> Implementation-Vendor-Id: commons-daemon
>
> but that should be:
> Implementation-Vendor-Id: org.apache
>
This is really getting annoying.
I really don't wish to do another release
just so you can exercise your ability to find that
letter A should be a letter B and put -1 for 10th time.
You are free to fix anything you think is wrong,
and propose a release.
Regards
--
^TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 16/03/2010, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 05:22 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> >
> > The KEYS file is a bit old, but I assume it won't actually be used.
> >
> > Also, the source/ directory still has the 1.0.2 version in it, which
> > confused me a bit.
> >
> >
>
> This has nothing to do with a release.
> It's a folder README. fixed anyhow
>
>
>
> > The source/ dir also has a set of 1.0.3 binaries, however these are
> > not the same as the identically named files in
> > http://people.apache.org/~mturk/daemon/binaries/1.0.3/
> >
> >
>
> Again wrong upload. fixed.
>
There's a problem with the Manifests in the source and javadoc jars.
They have:
Implementation-Vendor-Id: commons-daemon
but that should be:
Implementation-Vendor-Id: org.apache
as per the binary archive
>
> > Is the code going to be released to Maven? If so, where are the artefacts?
> >
> >
>
> Nope.
>
>
> > It would be nice if the zip archives used CRLF line endings
> >
> >
>
> -1. .zip is usable on platforms having broken tar like Solaris.
> The files in windows/directory have CRLF
>
>
> >
> > It's difficult to reconcile the archives with the SVN tag, as the
> > directory structure is rather different. Is it necessary to use a
> > different structure? In particular, SVN uses the directory name "nt"
> > whereas the archives use "windows", which is very confusing.
> >
> >
>
> This is intentional. In future the nt will be renamed to
> windows in SVN as well.
>
>
> > Also, there's no details of how to build the native code in the archive
> itself.
> >
>
> Has nothing to do with a release process.
I disagree.
> Someone will have to write that.
It's already done, just copy the README file from the main source.
>
>
> Regards
> --
> ^TM
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
On 03/16/2010 05:22 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> The KEYS file is a bit old, but I assume it won't actually be used.
>
> Also, the source/ directory still has the 1.0.2 version in it, which
> confused me a bit.
>
This has nothing to do with a release.
It's a folder README. fixed anyhow
> The source/ dir also has a set of 1.0.3 binaries, however these are
> not the same as the identically named files in
> http://people.apache.org/~mturk/daemon/binaries/1.0.3/
>
Again wrong upload. fixed.
> Is the code going to be released to Maven? If so, where are the artefacts?
>
Nope.
> It would be nice if the zip archives used CRLF line endings
>
-1. .zip is usable on platforms having broken tar like Solaris.
The files in windows/directory have CRLF
>
> It's difficult to reconcile the archives with the SVN tag, as the
> directory structure is rather different. Is it necessary to use a
> different structure? In particular, SVN uses the directory name "nt"
> whereas the archives use "windows", which is very confusing.
>
This is intentional. In future the nt will be renamed to
windows in SVN as well.
> Also, there's no details of how to build the native code in the archive itself.
Has nothing to do with a release process.
Someone will have to write that.
Regards
--
^TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
On 03/16/2010 05:22 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> -1
>
> I think the packaging needs to be improved.
>
Ping. Have you read my comments?
Regards
--
^TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Daemon 1.0.3 based on RC2
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
In 16/03/2010, Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Calling this again due to a typo and
> removing site and dormant subcomponents from the
> source distribution.
>
> We had 1.0.2 release last month and now 1.0.3 solves
> few minor bug fixes and adds couple of new features.
> Some of the old files not having ASL license header
> were updated, although some machine generated are left intact.
> Also the site is no longer part of the source distribution
> as well as unmaintained monisvc sources which will be
> removed from the SVN completely.
>
> The release is available for testing at:
> http://people.apache.org/~mturk/daemon/
The KEYS file is a bit old, but I assume it won't actually be used.
Also, the source/ directory still has the 1.0.2 version in it, which
confused me a bit.
The source/ dir also has a set of 1.0.3 binaries, however these are
not the same as the identically named files in
http://people.apache.org/~mturk/daemon/binaries/1.0.3/
Which set of binaries is correct?
Is the code going to be released to Maven? If so, where are the artefacts?
It would be nice if the zip archives used CRLF line endings
Hashes/sigs OK
It's difficult to reconcile the archives with the SVN tag, as the
directory structure is rather different. Is it necessary to use a
different structure? In particular, SVN uses the directory name "nt"
whereas the archives use "windows", which is very confusing.
Also, there's no details of how to build the native code in the archive itself.
> The SVN tag is:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/daemon/tags/COMMONS_DAEMON_1_0_3_RC2
> (If voted will be renamed to COMMONS_DAEMON_1_0_3)
> So here is the vote:
> [ ] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
-1
I think the packaging needs to be improved.
Also, cannot release to Maven repo without artefacts to review.
> Vote is open for 72 hours.
>
>
> Regards
> --
> ^TM
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org