You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> on 2007/06/07 00:32:53 UTC
[VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Hi,
I have created a new distribution and a new site which you find at
http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/dist
http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/site
This version matches revision 544971, which I intend to tag as
commons-io-1.3.2 in case of a successful vote. Compared to the
previous vote, the following changes have been made:
- Rahul Akolkar has convinced me, that the FileCleaningTracker should not be
declared serializable, because it isn't. The resulting issues must
be resolved
within commons-fileupload and not commons-io.
- As observed by Niall Pemberton, the -sources and -javadoc jar files did not
contain LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt files. This is now ensured by the POM.
It is an open issue for me, whether this change can be pushed up to the
commons-parent POM.
Please cast your vote.
Jochen
[ ] +1
[ ] =0
[ ] -1
--
Women have the ability to wind you round their little finger.
Daughters can use all of the fingers together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 6/13/07, Dion Gillard <di...@apache.org> wrote:
> The deployed site below still says Validator as the title. Is this fixed?
I see that Niall has already fixed this. We do not need a separate
vote to include this fix, do we?
--
"Besides, manipulating elections is under penalty of law, resulting in
a preventative effect against manipulating elections.
The german government justifying the use of electronic voting machines
and obviously believing that we don't need a police, because all
illegal actions are forbidden.
http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/051/1605194.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by Dion Gillard <di...@apache.org>.
The deployed site below still says Validator as the title. Is this fixed?
On 6/7/07, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have created a new distribution and a new site which you find at
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/dist
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/site
>
> This version matches revision 544971, which I intend to tag as
> commons-io-1.3.2 in case of a successful vote. Compared to the
> previous vote, the following changes have been made:
>
> - Rahul Akolkar has convinced me, that the FileCleaningTracker should
> not be
> declared serializable, because it isn't. The resulting issues must
> be resolved
> within commons-fileupload and not commons-io.
> - As observed by Niall Pemberton, the -sources and -javadoc jar files
> did not
> contain LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt files. This is now ensured by the
> POM.
> It is an open issue for me, whether this change can be pushed up to
> the
> commons-parent POM.
>
> Please cast your vote.
>
> Jochen
>
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
>
>
> --
> Women have the ability to wind you round their little finger.
> Daughters can use all of the fingers together.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
dIon Gillard
Rule #131 of Acquisition: Information is Profit.
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 13/06/07, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/12/07, Ben Speakmon <bs...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I can't find the GPG key you used to sign the tarballs -- it's not in
> > http://www.apache.org/dist/jakarta/commons/io/KEYS and there isn't a KEYS
> > file in the svn. Looks good otherwise.
> >
> > +0 as is, with +1 once the key is updated and I can verify the sigs.
>
> Rats, I already *had* a proposed KEYS file in my dist directory, but
> seems I removed it.
>
> Ok, I have created a KEYS file for future use, which you find at
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/dist/KEYS
>
> together with the other files. Hope, that's fine.
>
I think it should also be in SVN.
> Jochen
>
>
> --
> "Besides, manipulating elections is under penalty of law, resulting in
> a preventative effect against manipulating elections.
>
> The german government justifying the use of electronic voting machines
> and obviously believing that we don't need a police, because all
> illegal actions are forbidden.
>
> http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/051/1605194.pdf
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 6/12/07, Ben Speakmon <bs...@apache.org> wrote:
> I can't find the GPG key you used to sign the tarballs -- it's not in
> http://www.apache.org/dist/jakarta/commons/io/KEYS and there isn't a KEYS
> file in the svn. Looks good otherwise.
>
> +0 as is, with +1 once the key is updated and I can verify the sigs.
Rats, I already *had* a proposed KEYS file in my dist directory, but
seems I removed it.
Ok, I have created a KEYS file for future use, which you find at
http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/dist/KEYS
together with the other files. Hope, that's fine.
Jochen
--
"Besides, manipulating elections is under penalty of law, resulting in
a preventative effect against manipulating elections.
The german government justifying the use of electronic voting machines
and obviously believing that we don't need a police, because all
illegal actions are forbidden.
http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/051/1605194.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by Ben Speakmon <bs...@apache.org>.
I can't find the GPG key you used to sign the tarballs -- it's not in
http://www.apache.org/dist/jakarta/commons/io/KEYS and there isn't a KEYS
file in the svn. Looks good otherwise.
+0 as is, with +1 once the key is updated and I can verify the sigs.
On 6/6/07, Jochen Wiedmann < jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have created a new distribution and a new site which you find at
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/dist<http://people.apache.org/%7Ejochen/commons-io/dist>
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/site
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Ejochen/commons-io/site>
>
> This version matches revision 544971, which I intend to tag as
> commons-io-1.3.2 in case of a successful vote. Compared to the
> previous vote, the following changes have been made:
>
> - Rahul Akolkar has convinced me, that the FileCleaningTracker should
> not be
> declared serializable, because it isn't. The resulting issues must
> be resolved
> within commons-fileupload and not commons-io.
> - As observed by Niall Pemberton, the -sources and -javadoc jar files
> did not
> contain LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt files. This is now ensured by the
> POM.
> It is an open issue for me, whether this change can be pushed up to
> the
> commons-parent POM.
>
> Please cast your vote.
>
> Jochen
>
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
>
>
> --
> Women have the ability to wind you round their little finger.
> Daughters can use all of the fingers together.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: Are positive votes valid for further RC`s?
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'd like to bring up an issue from the vote on commons-io:
>
>
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>> Personally I feel that when voting on a new rc dist, the previous
>> +1s still count (by lazyness) and its really about converting the
>> -1s over to +1s.
>
> How do others think here?
Relese votes are on the concrete artifacts being distributed, so IMHO
each change to a file that is prepared to be released void the
previous votes.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Are positive votes valid for further RC`s?
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On 6/19/07, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to bring up an issue from the vote on commons-io:
>
>
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> >
> > Personally I feel that when voting on a new rc dist, the previous +1s
> > still count (by lazyness) and its really about converting the -1s over
> > to +1s.
> >
> >
>
> How do others think here? It would certainly save a lot of time, given the
> fact that commons developers tend to ignore RC votes with increasing
> numbers.
>
<snip/>
No, they don't count since the bits have changed. Perhaps that is
incentive to try to keep the numbers from increasing too much.
Release checking is becoming more and more tedious (with the advent of
multi-module m2 builds), but we will have to address that separately.
-Rahul
> Thanks,
>
> Jochen
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Are positive votes valid for further RC`s?
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I'd like to bring up an issue from the vote on commons-io:
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> Personally I feel that when voting on a new rc dist, the previous +1s
> still count (by lazyness) and its really about converting the -1s over
> to +1s.
>
>
How do others think here? It would certainly save a lot of time, given the
fact that commons developers tend to ignore RC votes with increasing
numbers.
Thanks,
Jochen
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--3rd-attempt%3A-Release-commons-io-1.3.2-tf3880798.html#a11206232
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 13/06/07, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/13/07, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > * tar.gz files match zips for structure.
>
> What does that mean?
>
>
> > In Opera I got broken images on this page.
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/site/changes-report.html
>
> You are right, this is
>
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSITE-190
>
> I suggest that I fix this manually in the deployed site.
>
> > Same on this useless looking report (in that it will always be out of date):
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/site/jira-report.html
>
> Again, I have no problem to remove it from the deployed site.
>
>
> > Personally I feel that when voting on a new rc dist, the previous +1s
> > still count (by lazyness) and its really about converting the -1s over
> > to +1s.
>
> That's interesting. If others feel the same, then I'd like to see this
> fixed somewhere. I'll bring up a different thread on that.
>
>
> > I'm -1 with respect to the md5s. Presuming you did them by hand, it's
> > something you can easily fix without rerolling anything. Even if not,
> > I'd just fix them by hand anyway.
>
> Ok, as you are the second one asking for it, I've changed it. Same for
> the .sha1 files.
I think the MD5 standard is:
32 chars checksum
single space
* (for binary) or space (for ascii)
filename
so in theory there should be a * after the space for most of the md5 files.
Not sure if (m)any programs insist on this.
S.
>
> > I'm -0 on the validator bit meaning a reroll. I dislike how Maven1
> > puts the site in the binary and am looking forward to doing a Maven2
> > build and finding a way to only put the real docs in the binary
> > (javadoc, release notes and user guide).
>
> That's a matter of opinion. I for my part do like if the site is included.
>
>
> Jochen
>
> --
> "Besides, manipulating elections is under penalty of law, resulting in
> a preventative effect against manipulating elections.
>
> The german government justifying the use of electronic voting machines
> and obviously believing that we don't need a police, because all
> illegal actions are forbidden.
>
> http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/051/1605194.pdf
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 6/12/07, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/13/07, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > * tar.gz files match zips for structure.
>
> What does that mean?
Means I ran verify_archive_equivalence.sh :)
>
> > I'm -0 on the validator bit meaning a reroll. I dislike how Maven1
> > puts the site in the binary and am looking forward to doing a Maven2
> > build and finding a way to only put the real docs in the binary
> > (javadoc, release notes and user guide).
>
> That's a matter of opinion. I for my part do like if the site is included.
Sounds like you need to reroll then :)
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 6/13/07, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * tar.gz files match zips for structure.
What does that mean?
> In Opera I got broken images on this page.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/site/changes-report.html
You are right, this is
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSITE-190
I suggest that I fix this manually in the deployed site.
> Same on this useless looking report (in that it will always be out of date):
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/site/jira-report.html
Again, I have no problem to remove it from the deployed site.
> Personally I feel that when voting on a new rc dist, the previous +1s
> still count (by lazyness) and its really about converting the -1s over
> to +1s.
That's interesting. If others feel the same, then I'd like to see this
fixed somewhere. I'll bring up a different thread on that.
> I'm -1 with respect to the md5s. Presuming you did them by hand, it's
> something you can easily fix without rerolling anything. Even if not,
> I'd just fix them by hand anyway.
Ok, as you are the second one asking for it, I've changed it. Same for
the .sha1 files.
> I'm -0 on the validator bit meaning a reroll. I dislike how Maven1
> puts the site in the binary and am looking forward to doing a Maven2
> build and finding a way to only put the real docs in the binary
> (javadoc, release notes and user guide).
That's a matter of opinion. I for my part do like if the site is included.
Jochen
--
"Besides, manipulating elections is under penalty of law, resulting in
a preventative effect against manipulating elections.
The german government justifying the use of electronic voting machines
and obviously believing that we don't need a police, because all
illegal actions are forbidden.
http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/051/1605194.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 6/6/07, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have created a new distribution and a new site which you find at
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/dist
* PGP matches (once I found your key in the FileUpload KEYS file)
* MD5 fails - as someone else mentioned, the .md5 is the wrong format.
* tar.gz files match zips for structure.
* src unpacks (not into a -src, not a blocker for me)
* Builds happily under m1, m2 and ant (jdk 1.5).
The build failed under 1.3 (ant). It was a failed test. My machine's
fan was whirring away and the errors are rather worrying:
[junit] java(1510,0x82012600) malloc: *** error for object
0x80d00910: incorrect checksum for freed object - object was probably
modified after being freed, break at szone_error to debug
[junit] java(1510,0x82012600) malloc: *** set a breakpoint in
szone_error to debug
and
[junit] java(1476,0x82018000) malloc: *** error for object
0x82001c00: incorrect checksum for freed object - object was probably
modified after being freed, break at szone_error to debug
[junit] java(1476,0x82018000) malloc: *** set a breakpoint in
szone_error to debug
so something to ignore on your part. I on the other hand am going to
backup pronto.
If someone could confirm that they've built under 1.3 for Ant (or did
we move to 1.4?).
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/site
In Opera I got broken images on this page.
http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/site/changes-report.html
Same on this useless looking report (in that it will always be out of date):
http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/site/jira-report.html
Generally I think site issues should never spark a need to revote; but
because the website gets put in the download it will come down to
whether you feel it needs fixing in the download.
Personally I feel that when voting on a new rc dist, the previous +1s
still count (by lazyness) and its really about converting the -1s over
to +1s.
I'm -1 with respect to the md5s. Presuming you did them by hand, it's
something you can easily fix without rerolling anything. Even if not,
I'd just fix them by hand anyway.
I'm -0 on the validator bit meaning a reroll. I dislike how Maven1
puts the site in the binary and am looking forward to doing a Maven2
build and finding a way to only put the real docs in the binary
(javadoc, release notes and user guide).
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
+1
Niall
On 6/6/07, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have created a new distribution and a new site which you find at
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/dist
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/site
>
> This version matches revision 544971, which I intend to tag as
> commons-io-1.3.2 in case of a successful vote. Compared to the
> previous vote, the following changes have been made:
>
> - Rahul Akolkar has convinced me, that the FileCleaningTracker should not be
> declared serializable, because it isn't. The resulting issues must
> be resolved
> within commons-fileupload and not commons-io.
> - As observed by Niall Pemberton, the -sources and -javadoc jar files did not
> contain LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt files. This is now ensured by the POM.
> It is an open issue for me, whether this change can be pushed up to the
> commons-parent POM.
>
> Please cast your vote.
>
> Jochen
>
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
>
>
> --
> Women have the ability to wind you round their little finger.
> Daughters can use all of the fingers together.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 6/7/07, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are the jar archives necessary?
Yes.
> Other projects tend only to release zip and tar.gz.
The jar files are released implicitly, via the Maven repositories. The
only difference is that I do this explicitly.
Jochen
--
Women have the ability to wind you round their little finger.
Daughters can use all of the fingers together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 06/06/07, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have created a new distribution and a new site which you find at
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/dist
Are the jar archives necessary?
Other projects tend only to release zip and tar.gz.
If they are not needed, it would make reviewing easier if they were
not produced.
> http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-io/site
The RAT report description is wrong, but that is due to a bug in the
Maven RAT package. I've filed a bug against it.
[When it's fixed, there will be a lot of sites to update!]
> This version matches revision 544971, which I intend to tag as
> commons-io-1.3.2 in case of a successful vote. Compared to the
> previous vote, the following changes have been made:
>
> - Rahul Akolkar has convinced me, that the FileCleaningTracker should not be
> declared serializable, because it isn't. The resulting issues must
> be resolved
> within commons-fileupload and not commons-io.
> - As observed by Niall Pemberton, the -sources and -javadoc jar files did not
> contain LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt files. This is now ensured by the POM.
> It is an open issue for me, whether this change can be pushed up to the
> commons-parent POM.
>
> Please cast your vote.
+1
S///
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Please cast your vote.
> [ ] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
Hmmm, I feel I'd like to vote -1, but that does seem a little unfair as
I obviously haven't been following that closely. Officially, my vote is
a -0.
I hadn't tracked the changes going into [io], but I was surprised to
find a newly deparecated class in a minor point release. I would suggest
that deprecations should be avoided for minor point releases (that are
supposed to be just small bugfixes).
My preference would be for one of these to occur:
a) FileCleaner to be non-deprecated (see below)
b) FileCleaner to be non-deprecated in 1.3.2, but deprecated in 1.4
c) This release to be 1.4
Despite all the discussions, I still believe that having a static method
version of FileCleaner seems useful to me. Why should we force our users
to have to hold the static reference if they only want or need a singleton?
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org