You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to wss4j-dev@ws.apache.org by Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com> on 2008/06/02 09:57:18 UTC
Re: PASSED [was: [RE-VOTE] release wss4j-1.5.4]
Fred
I think Tom's feedback is good, but since he +1'ed the release, I
think we should go ahead. At this stage, I don't think we should
modify the build or the ZIPs/TARs/etc. The vote passed on those
elements and they should get posted as is. My view is that we should
post the changelog, etc on the site alongside those artefacts, and
modify the trunk to include them in future.
I have to admit, I am slightly biased towards fleetness of foot, as we
are itching to get a Synapse release out and we are waiting on Rampart
and hence WSS4J, but my suggestion is also inline with the usual
pattern that happens when there are minor issues raised on other
releases, especially in the Incubator where I hang out.
What are your thoughts? Is my proposal good enough to go with?
Paul
--------------------------------------
By my count, we have the following results:
3 +1s from Apache WS PM members (http://ws.apache.org/#Members)
6 non-binding +1s
No other votes were cast.
I am therefore pleased to announce that the vote has passed!
We did, however, get some requests from Tom Jordahl on the ws-general
list:
1. Include the ChangeLog.txt in the distribution (my fault -- it's
in the svn repo, but not the dist)
2. Indicate that the Jiras fixed were only fixed in the 1.5.4 release
3. Change the front page to indicate the release version and date
I'm not exactly sure how to proceed with this, though I can present
some alternatives:
A. Manually modify the distribution and site before deployment
B. Modify the branch/tag to reflect these changes
C. Modify the mainline only to reflect these changes
D. Respin a set of bits/Jars
I'm pretty firmly against D, because properly speaking, we would have
to re-vote on the release (ship the bits you test). Strictly
speaking, we would be violating that rule by tampering with the
distribution ZIP, but we would not be changing any of the built bits,
so in that sense, I think A is okay, at least marginally.
The problem comes with build reproducibility; if we ever wanted to
reproduce the bits as released (site and dist), we'd rightfully need
to make the changes on the branch/tag.
The real question is, what is the liklihood of that? I'd say it's
pretty UNlikely, and is worth the risk to just make manual changes to
the site and distribution ZIP, and then just record the changes on the
mainline, for future reference.
So I guess I'm inclined towards a combination of A and C, with perhaps
a note in the README in the tag indicating what additional manual
steps were taken for the dist and site changes.
Thanks!
- -Fred
--------------------------------------
--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
Apache Synapse PMC Chair
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
paul@wso2.com
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wss4j-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wss4j-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: PASSED [was: [RE-VOTE] release wss4j-1.5.4]
Posted by Fred Dushin <fa...@apache.org>.
They've actually been deployed already, as have the distribution
artifacts.
I'm holding off on the announcement because I'm having problems with
updating the checkout of the web site on ws.apache.org, due to an OS
permission issue, which I hope to have resolved today.
-Fred
On Jun 3, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Ruwan Linton wrote:
> +1,
>
> I guess we are not voting for the site just for the binary
> artifacts. So I don't see any issue with this approach.
>
> Can we get the artifacts to the maven2 repositories ASAP, because
> Synapse release is awaiting for these.
>
> Thanks,
> Ruwan
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Fred Dushin <fa...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> That works for me. I'm not sure if we technically voted on the site
> component of the release, so I'm okay with tweaking that, and not the
> actual signed bits. So the site changes will include:
>
> * Adding the release version (1.5.4) to the cover page
> * Ensuring that the tickets listed in the jira-report were fixed in
> the 1.5.4 release, only.
>
> Let's go with that, for the plan, and we'll try to ensure that the
> next release fixes the issues Tom raised.
>
> Thanks, Paul,
> -Fred
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> Fred
>
> I think Tom's feedback is good, but since he +1'ed the release, I
> think we should go ahead. At this stage, I don't think we should
> modify the build or the ZIPs/TARs/etc. The vote passed on those
> elements and they should get posted as is. My view is that we should
> post the changelog, etc on the site alongside those artefacts, and
> modify the trunk to include them in future.
>
> I have to admit, I am slightly biased towards fleetness of foot, as we
> are itching to get a Synapse release out and we are waiting on Rampart
> and hence WSS4J, but my suggestion is also inline with the usual
> pattern that happens when there are minor issues raised on other
> releases, especially in the Incubator where I hang out.
>
> What are your thoughts? Is my proposal good enough to go with?
>
> Paul
>
> --------------------------------------
> By my count, we have the following results:
>
> 3 +1s from Apache WS PM members (http://ws.apache.org/#Members)
> 6 non-binding +1s
>
> No other votes were cast.
>
> I am therefore pleased to announce that the vote has passed!
>
> We did, however, get some requests from Tom Jordahl on the ws-general
> list:
>
> 1. Include the ChangeLog.txt in the distribution (my fault -- it's
> in the svn repo, but not the dist)
> 2. Indicate that the Jiras fixed were only fixed in the 1.5.4 release
> 3. Change the front page to indicate the release version and date
>
> I'm not exactly sure how to proceed with this, though I can present
> some alternatives:
>
> A. Manually modify the distribution and site before deployment
> B. Modify the branch/tag to reflect these changes
> C. Modify the mainline only to reflect these changes
> D. Respin a set of bits/Jars
>
> I'm pretty firmly against D, because properly speaking, we would have
> to re-vote on the release (ship the bits you test). Strictly
> speaking, we would be violating that rule by tampering with the
> distribution ZIP, but we would not be changing any of the built bits,
> so in that sense, I think A is okay, at least marginally.
>
> The problem comes with build reproducibility; if we ever wanted to
> reproduce the bits as released (site and dist), we'd rightfully need
> to make the changes on the branch/tag.
>
> The real question is, what is the liklihood of that? I'd say it's
> pretty UNlikely, and is worth the risk to just make manual changes to
> the site and distribution ZIP, and then just record the changes on the
> mainline, for future reference.
>
> So I guess I'm inclined towards a combination of A and C, with perhaps
> a note in the README in the tag indicating what additional manual
> steps were taken for the dist and site changes.
>
> Thanks!
> - -Fred
> --------------------------------------
> --
> Paul Fremantle
> Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
> Apache Synapse PMC Chair
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
> paul@wso2.com
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wss4j-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wss4j-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wss4j-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wss4j-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ruwan Linton
> http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
Re: PASSED [was: [RE-VOTE] release wss4j-1.5.4]
Posted by Ruwan Linton <ru...@gmail.com>.
+1,
I guess we are not voting for the site just for the binary artifacts. So I
don't see any issue with this approach.
Can we get the artifacts to the maven2 repositories ASAP, because Synapse
release is awaiting for these.
Thanks,
Ruwan
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Fred Dushin <fa...@apache.org> wrote:
> That works for me. I'm not sure if we technically voted on the site
> component of the release, so I'm okay with tweaking that, and not the
> actual signed bits. So the site changes will include:
>
> * Adding the release version (1.5.4) to the cover page
> * Ensuring that the tickets listed in the jira-report were fixed in the
> 1.5.4 release, only.
>
> Let's go with that, for the plan, and we'll try to ensure that the
> next release fixes the issues Tom raised.
>
> Thanks, Paul,
> -Fred
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> Fred
>>
>> I think Tom's feedback is good, but since he +1'ed the release, I
>> think we should go ahead. At this stage, I don't think we should
>> modify the build or the ZIPs/TARs/etc. The vote passed on those
>> elements and they should get posted as is. My view is that we should
>> post the changelog, etc on the site alongside those artefacts, and
>> modify the trunk to include them in future.
>>
>> I have to admit, I am slightly biased towards fleetness of foot, as we
>> are itching to get a Synapse release out and we are waiting on Rampart
>> and hence WSS4J, but my suggestion is also inline with the usual
>> pattern that happens when there are minor issues raised on other
>> releases, especially in the Incubator where I hang out.
>>
>> What are your thoughts? Is my proposal good enough to go with?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> By my count, we have the following results:
>>
>> 3 +1s from Apache WS PM members (http://ws.apache.org/#Members)
>> 6 non-binding +1s
>>
>> No other votes were cast.
>>
>> I am therefore pleased to announce that the vote has passed!
>>
>> We did, however, get some requests from Tom Jordahl on the ws-general
>> list:
>>
>> 1. Include the ChangeLog.txt in the distribution (my fault -- it's
>> in the svn repo, but not the dist)
>> 2. Indicate that the Jiras fixed were only fixed in the 1.5.4 release
>> 3. Change the front page to indicate the release version and date
>>
>> I'm not exactly sure how to proceed with this, though I can present
>> some alternatives:
>>
>> A. Manually modify the distribution and site before deployment
>> B. Modify the branch/tag to reflect these changes
>> C. Modify the mainline only to reflect these changes
>> D. Respin a set of bits/Jars
>>
>> I'm pretty firmly against D, because properly speaking, we would have
>> to re-vote on the release (ship the bits you test). Strictly
>> speaking, we would be violating that rule by tampering with the
>> distribution ZIP, but we would not be changing any of the built bits,
>> so in that sense, I think A is okay, at least marginally.
>>
>> The problem comes with build reproducibility; if we ever wanted to
>> reproduce the bits as released (site and dist), we'd rightfully need
>> to make the changes on the branch/tag.
>>
>> The real question is, what is the liklihood of that? I'd say it's
>> pretty UNlikely, and is worth the risk to just make manual changes to
>> the site and distribution ZIP, and then just record the changes on the
>> mainline, for future reference.
>>
>> So I guess I'm inclined towards a combination of A and C, with perhaps
>> a note in the README in the tag indicating what additional manual
>> steps were taken for the dist and site changes.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> - -Fred
>> --------------------------------------
>> --
>> Paul Fremantle
>> Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
>> Apache Synapse PMC Chair
>> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>>
>> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
>> paul@wso2.com
>>
>> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wss4j-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: wss4j-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wss4j-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wss4j-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Ruwan Linton
http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
Re: PASSED [was: [RE-VOTE] release wss4j-1.5.4]
Posted by Fred Dushin <fa...@apache.org>.
That works for me. I'm not sure if we technically voted on the site
component of the release, so I'm okay with tweaking that, and not the
actual signed bits. So the site changes will include:
* Adding the release version (1.5.4) to the cover page
* Ensuring that the tickets listed in the jira-report were fixed in
the 1.5.4 release, only.
Let's go with that, for the plan, and we'll try to ensure that the
next release fixes the issues Tom raised.
Thanks, Paul,
-Fred
On Jun 2, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> Fred
>
> I think Tom's feedback is good, but since he +1'ed the release, I
> think we should go ahead. At this stage, I don't think we should
> modify the build or the ZIPs/TARs/etc. The vote passed on those
> elements and they should get posted as is. My view is that we should
> post the changelog, etc on the site alongside those artefacts, and
> modify the trunk to include them in future.
>
> I have to admit, I am slightly biased towards fleetness of foot, as we
> are itching to get a Synapse release out and we are waiting on Rampart
> and hence WSS4J, but my suggestion is also inline with the usual
> pattern that happens when there are minor issues raised on other
> releases, especially in the Incubator where I hang out.
>
> What are your thoughts? Is my proposal good enough to go with?
>
> Paul
>
> --------------------------------------
> By my count, we have the following results:
>
> 3 +1s from Apache WS PM members (http://ws.apache.org/#Members)
> 6 non-binding +1s
>
> No other votes were cast.
>
> I am therefore pleased to announce that the vote has passed!
>
> We did, however, get some requests from Tom Jordahl on the ws-general
> list:
>
> 1. Include the ChangeLog.txt in the distribution (my fault -- it's
> in the svn repo, but not the dist)
> 2. Indicate that the Jiras fixed were only fixed in the 1.5.4 release
> 3. Change the front page to indicate the release version and date
>
> I'm not exactly sure how to proceed with this, though I can present
> some alternatives:
>
> A. Manually modify the distribution and site before deployment
> B. Modify the branch/tag to reflect these changes
> C. Modify the mainline only to reflect these changes
> D. Respin a set of bits/Jars
>
> I'm pretty firmly against D, because properly speaking, we would have
> to re-vote on the release (ship the bits you test). Strictly
> speaking, we would be violating that rule by tampering with the
> distribution ZIP, but we would not be changing any of the built bits,
> so in that sense, I think A is okay, at least marginally.
>
> The problem comes with build reproducibility; if we ever wanted to
> reproduce the bits as released (site and dist), we'd rightfully need
> to make the changes on the branch/tag.
>
> The real question is, what is the liklihood of that? I'd say it's
> pretty UNlikely, and is worth the risk to just make manual changes to
> the site and distribution ZIP, and then just record the changes on the
> mainline, for future reference.
>
> So I guess I'm inclined towards a combination of A and C, with perhaps
> a note in the README in the tag indicating what additional manual
> steps were taken for the dist and site changes.
>
> Thanks!
> - -Fred
> --------------------------------------
> --
> Paul Fremantle
> Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
> Apache Synapse PMC Chair
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
> paul@wso2.com
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wss4j-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wss4j-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wss4j-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wss4j-dev-help@ws.apache.org