You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cayenne.apache.org by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> on 2014/02/09 01:33:20 UTC
[VOTE] 3.1RC1
I just prepared the release artifacts. Rat and testing results were mentioned in a separate thread. Please evaluate and cast your votes.
Maven artifacts: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecayenne-1000/
Assemblies: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cayenne/3.1RC1/
Andrus
Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1
Posted by Michael Gentry <mg...@masslight.net>.
+1
Thanks Andrus!
mrg
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>wrote:
> I just prepared the release artifacts. Rat and testing results were
> mentioned in a separate thread. Please evaluate and cast your votes.
>
> Maven artifacts:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecayenne-1000/
> Assemblies: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cayenne/3.1RC1/
>
> Andrus
Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
The most obvious potential source of incompatibility when compiling with a newer JDK, targeting an older one is overlooking code referencing newer APIs. Such code will compile, but fail in runtime with ClassNotFound or similar exceptions. Luckily we are protected from that by Jenkins already.
Andrus
On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:02 PM, Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@maniatis.org> wrote:
> Well, ideally we'd release out of a completely reproducible environment like Jenkins. That's what I do at work and it is much more reliable.
>
> I'm not sure about exactly how stable the Apache Jenkins is, but it seems to be better. Ideally we build and release from the 1.5 JDK to be absolutely sure. I don't know if the newer javac introduced optimisations which are backward compatible.
>
> Ari
>
>
> On 18/02/2014 5:48am, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>> No, that's fine. It shouldn't block the release.
>>
>> I'd prefer we used the same jdk to build the release for all systems,
>> but perhaps that's not practical.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>>> So Mike, unless you'd like to follow up on that cross-JDK binary build, I am going to post a release announcement on user@. To me the important piece that guarantees valid binary assemblies regardless of JDK is this:
>>>
>>> <plugin>
>>> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
>>> <version>2.3.2</version>
>>> <configuration>
>>> <source>1.5</source>
>>> <target>1.5</target>
>>> </configuration>
>>> </plugin>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2014, at 10:37 PM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I should've waited for your vote and thanks a lot for doing a thorough review.
>>>>
>>>>> checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, lately we've been using gpg for that instead of md5 command:
>>>>
>>>> gpg --print-md MD5 cayenne-X.X.tar.gz
>>>>
>>>>> Turns out we built the zip versions with
>>>>> java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
>>>>> that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
>>>>> Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
>>>>> they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
>>>>> particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
>>>>> a 1.6 JRE?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course. The same set of sources is used on Mac to build .dmg and .tar.gz and then on Windows to build .zip. My two envs happened to have different JDKs. So that's causing these small difference. I'd say there are no essential differences to worry about (although I'll try to keep my JDKs in sync across platforms in the future).
>>>>
>>>> In fact we make a claim that Cayenne 3.1 is compatible with Java 1.5. So if there was no backwards compatibility, we would've been forced to use JDK 1.5. If we actually see a problem, we should definitely pull the binary and redo it, but I don't think we will.
>>>>
>>>> Andrus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I didn't realized the vote was closed, and finally finished my review today:
>>>>>
>>>>> Source provided: check
>>>>> checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
>>>>> format doesn't feed back into md5sum)
>>>>> signatures match: check
>>>>> Source builds: check
>>>>> appropriately licensed: checked by rat
>>>>>
>>>>> My src jar builds match the tar.gz versions (except for timestamps),
>>>>> but not the zip versions. Turns out we built the zip versions with
>>>>> java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
>>>>> that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
>>>>> Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
>>>>> they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
>>>>> particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
>>>>> a 1.6 JRE?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Andrus Adamchik
>>>>> <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I am adding my +1. And I am closing the vote. Here is the list of votes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Huss +1
>>>>>> Aristedes Maniatis +1
>>>>>> Michael Gentry +1
>>>>>> Andrus Adamchik +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have 4 +1s and no other votes, so the release becomes official. I will post the files now and update the downloads page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks everyone, and let's get ready for 3.2 vote soon :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> --
> -------------------------->
> Aristedes Maniatis
> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>
Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1
Posted by Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@maniatis.org>.
Well, ideally we'd release out of a completely reproducible environment like Jenkins. That's what I do at work and it is much more reliable.
I'm not sure about exactly how stable the Apache Jenkins is, but it seems to be better. Ideally we build and release from the 1.5 JDK to be absolutely sure. I don't know if the newer javac introduced optimisations which are backward compatible.
Ari
On 18/02/2014 5:48am, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> No, that's fine. It shouldn't block the release.
>
> I'd prefer we used the same jdk to build the release for all systems,
> but perhaps that's not practical.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>> So Mike, unless you'd like to follow up on that cross-JDK binary build, I am going to post a release announcement on user@. To me the important piece that guarantees valid binary assemblies regardless of JDK is this:
>>
>> <plugin>
>> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
>> <version>2.3.2</version>
>> <configuration>
>> <source>1.5</source>
>> <target>1.5</target>
>> </configuration>
>> </plugin>
>>
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2014, at 10:37 PM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I should've waited for your vote and thanks a lot for doing a thorough review.
>>>
>>>> checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
>>>
>>> Yeah, lately we've been using gpg for that instead of md5 command:
>>>
>>> gpg --print-md MD5 cayenne-X.X.tar.gz
>>>
>>>> Turns out we built the zip versions with
>>>> java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
>>>> that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
>>>> Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
>>>> they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
>>>> particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
>>>> a 1.6 JRE?
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course. The same set of sources is used on Mac to build .dmg and .tar.gz and then on Windows to build .zip. My two envs happened to have different JDKs. So that's causing these small difference. I'd say there are no essential differences to worry about (although I'll try to keep my JDKs in sync across platforms in the future).
>>>
>>> In fact we make a claim that Cayenne 3.1 is compatible with Java 1.5. So if there was no backwards compatibility, we would've been forced to use JDK 1.5. If we actually see a problem, we should definitely pull the binary and redo it, but I don't think we will.
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I didn't realized the vote was closed, and finally finished my review today:
>>>>
>>>> Source provided: check
>>>> checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
>>>> format doesn't feed back into md5sum)
>>>> signatures match: check
>>>> Source builds: check
>>>> appropriately licensed: checked by rat
>>>>
>>>> My src jar builds match the tar.gz versions (except for timestamps),
>>>> but not the zip versions. Turns out we built the zip versions with
>>>> java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
>>>> that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
>>>> Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
>>>> they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
>>>> particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
>>>> a 1.6 JRE?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Andrus Adamchik
>>>> <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>>>>> I am adding my +1. And I am closing the vote. Here is the list of votes:
>>>>>
>>>>> John Huss +1
>>>>> Aristedes Maniatis +1
>>>>> Michael Gentry +1
>>>>> Andrus Adamchik +1
>>>>>
>>>>> We have 4 +1s and no other votes, so the release becomes official. I will post the files now and update the downloads page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks everyone, and let's get ready for 3.2 vote soon :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
--
-------------------------->
Aristedes Maniatis
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
No, that's fine. It shouldn't block the release.
I'd prefer we used the same jdk to build the release for all systems,
but perhaps that's not practical.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> So Mike, unless you'd like to follow up on that cross-JDK binary build, I am going to post a release announcement on user@. To me the important piece that guarantees valid binary assemblies regardless of JDK is this:
>
> <plugin>
> <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
> <version>2.3.2</version>
> <configuration>
> <source>1.5</source>
> <target>1.5</target>
> </configuration>
> </plugin>
>
>
> Andrus
>
> On Feb 16, 2014, at 10:37 PM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I should've waited for your vote and thanks a lot for doing a thorough review.
>>
>>> checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
>>
>> Yeah, lately we've been using gpg for that instead of md5 command:
>>
>> gpg --print-md MD5 cayenne-X.X.tar.gz
>>
>>> Turns out we built the zip versions with
>>> java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
>>> that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
>>> Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
>>> they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
>>> particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
>>> a 1.6 JRE?
>>
>>
>> Of course. The same set of sources is used on Mac to build .dmg and .tar.gz and then on Windows to build .zip. My two envs happened to have different JDKs. So that's causing these small difference. I'd say there are no essential differences to worry about (although I'll try to keep my JDKs in sync across platforms in the future).
>>
>> In fact we make a claim that Cayenne 3.1 is compatible with Java 1.5. So if there was no backwards compatibility, we would've been forced to use JDK 1.5. If we actually see a problem, we should definitely pull the binary and redo it, but I don't think we will.
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I didn't realized the vote was closed, and finally finished my review today:
>>>
>>> Source provided: check
>>> checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
>>> format doesn't feed back into md5sum)
>>> signatures match: check
>>> Source builds: check
>>> appropriately licensed: checked by rat
>>>
>>> My src jar builds match the tar.gz versions (except for timestamps),
>>> but not the zip versions. Turns out we built the zip versions with
>>> java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
>>> that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
>>> Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
>>> they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
>>> particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
>>> a 1.6 JRE?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Andrus Adamchik
>>> <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>>>> I am adding my +1. And I am closing the vote. Here is the list of votes:
>>>>
>>>> John Huss +1
>>>> Aristedes Maniatis +1
>>>> Michael Gentry +1
>>>> Andrus Adamchik +1
>>>>
>>>> We have 4 +1s and no other votes, so the release becomes official. I will post the files now and update the downloads page.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks everyone, and let's get ready for 3.2 vote soon :)
>>>>
>>>> Andrus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
So Mike, unless you’d like to follow up on that cross-JDK binary build, I am going to post a release announcement on user@. To me the important piece that guarantees valid binary assemblies regardless of JDK is this:
<plugin>
<artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.3.2</version>
<configuration>
<source>1.5</source>
<target>1.5</target>
</configuration>
</plugin>
Andrus
On Feb 16, 2014, at 10:37 PM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> Sorry, I should’ve waited for your vote and thanks a lot for doing a thorough review.
>
>> checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
>
> Yeah, lately we’ve been using gpg for that instead of md5 command:
>
> gpg --print-md MD5 cayenne-X.X.tar.gz
>
>> Turns out we built the zip versions with
>> java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
>> that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
>> Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
>> they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
>> particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
>> a 1.6 JRE?
>
>
> Of course. The same set of sources is used on Mac to build .dmg and .tar.gz and then on Windows to build .zip. My two envs happened to have different JDKs. So that’s causing these small difference. I’d say there are no essential differences to worry about (although I’ll try to keep my JDKs in sync across platforms in the future).
>
> In fact we make a claim that Cayenne 3.1 is compatible with Java 1.5. So if there was no backwards compatibility, we would’ve been forced to use JDK 1.5. If we actually see a problem, we should definitely pull the binary and redo it, but I don’t think we will.
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I didn't realized the vote was closed, and finally finished my review today:
>>
>> Source provided: check
>> checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
>> format doesn't feed back into md5sum)
>> signatures match: check
>> Source builds: check
>> appropriately licensed: checked by rat
>>
>> My src jar builds match the tar.gz versions (except for timestamps),
>> but not the zip versions. Turns out we built the zip versions with
>> java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
>> that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
>> Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
>> they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
>> particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
>> a 1.6 JRE?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Andrus Adamchik
>> <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>>> I am adding my +1. And I am closing the vote. Here is the list of votes:
>>>
>>> John Huss +1
>>> Aristedes Maniatis +1
>>> Michael Gentry +1
>>> Andrus Adamchik +1
>>>
>>> We have 4 +1s and no other votes, so the release becomes official. I will post the files now and update the downloads page.
>>>
>>> Thanks everyone, and let's get ready for 3.2 vote soon :)
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Sorry, I should’ve waited for your vote and thanks a lot for doing a thorough review.
> checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
Yeah, lately we’ve been using gpg for that instead of md5 command:
gpg --print-md MD5 cayenne-X.X.tar.gz
> Turns out we built the zip versions with
> java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
> that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
> Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
> they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
> particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
> a 1.6 JRE?
Of course. The same set of sources is used on Mac to build .dmg and .tar.gz and then on Windows to build .zip. My two envs happened to have different JDKs. So that’s causing these small difference. I’d say there are no essential differences to worry about (although I’ll try to keep my JDKs in sync across platforms in the future).
In fact we make a claim that Cayenne 3.1 is compatible with Java 1.5. So if there was no backwards compatibility, we would’ve been forced to use JDK 1.5. If we actually see a problem, we should definitely pull the binary and redo it, but I don’t think we will.
Andrus
On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't realized the vote was closed, and finally finished my review today:
>
> Source provided: check
> checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
> format doesn't feed back into md5sum)
> signatures match: check
> Source builds: check
> appropriately licensed: checked by rat
>
> My src jar builds match the tar.gz versions (except for timestamps),
> but not the zip versions. Turns out we built the zip versions with
> java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
> that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
> Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
> they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
> particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
> a 1.6 JRE?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Andrus Adamchik
> <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>> I am adding my +1. And I am closing the vote. Here is the list of votes:
>>
>> John Huss +1
>> Aristedes Maniatis +1
>> Michael Gentry +1
>> Andrus Adamchik +1
>>
>> We have 4 +1s and no other votes, so the release becomes official. I will post the files now and update the downloads page.
>>
>> Thanks everyone, and let's get ready for 3.2 vote soon :)
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
I didn't realized the vote was closed, and finally finished my review today:
Source provided: check
checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
format doesn't feed back into md5sum)
signatures match: check
Source builds: check
appropriately licensed: checked by rat
My src jar builds match the tar.gz versions (except for timestamps),
but not the zip versions. Turns out we built the zip versions with
java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
a 1.6 JRE?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Andrus Adamchik
<an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
> I am adding my +1. And I am closing the vote. Here is the list of votes:
>
> John Huss +1
> Aristedes Maniatis +1
> Michael Gentry +1
> Andrus Adamchik +1
>
> We have 4 +1s and no other votes, so the release becomes official. I will post the files now and update the downloads page.
>
> Thanks everyone, and let's get ready for 3.2 vote soon :)
>
> Andrus
>
>
Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
I am adding my +1. And I am closing the vote. Here is the list of votes:
John Huss +1
Aristedes Maniatis +1
Michael Gentry +1
Andrus Adamchik +1
We have 4 +1s and no other votes, so the release becomes official. I will post the files now and update the downloads page.
Thanks everyone, and let’s get ready for 3.2 vote soon :)
Andrus
Explaining "legacy" app
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
On Feb 11, 2014, at 10:27 AM, John Huss <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the mac
> one - I had to use the legacy modeler although I have jdk 7 installed (but
> it is not the default). I'm on OS X 10.8.5. It would be nice to add
> something to the readme to explain the which systems the two modelers are
> intended for. Someone new to Cayenne may not realize that these are really
> the same app and instead think the "legacy" one is an inferior version.
Good point. I will add it to the Mac readme for the final release.
Andrus
Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1
Posted by Michael Gentry <mg...@masslight.net>.
I've done part of my checkout and will finish this weekend.
I tried to compare the JARs I built from the source distribution with the
JARs from the pre-built distributions and kept getting some differences in
the .class files which I used to not get in the past. I'm going to assume
these are compiler-related (different versions, etc) and move on.
mrg
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:27 AM, John Huss <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Looks good to me. I looked at the Mac and Windows assemblies. For the mac
> one - I had to use the legacy modeler although I have jdk 7 installed (but
> it is not the default). I'm on OS X 10.8.5. It would be nice to add
> something to the readme to explain the which systems the two modelers are
> intended for. Someone new to Cayenne may not realize that these are really
> the same app and instead think the "legacy" one is an inferior version.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org
> >wrote:
>
> > I just prepared the release artifacts. Rat and testing results were
> > mentioned in a separate thread. Please evaluate and cast your votes.
> >
> > Maven artifacts:
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecayenne-1000/
> > Assemblies: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cayenne/3.1RC1/
> >
> > Andrus
>
Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1
Posted by John Huss <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1
Looks good to me. I looked at the Mac and Windows assemblies. For the mac
one - I had to use the legacy modeler although I have jdk 7 installed (but
it is not the default). I'm on OS X 10.8.5. It would be nice to add
something to the readme to explain the which systems the two modelers are
intended for. Someone new to Cayenne may not realize that these are really
the same app and instead think the "legacy" one is an inferior version.
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>wrote:
> I just prepared the release artifacts. Rat and testing results were
> mentioned in a separate thread. Please evaluate and cast your votes.
>
> Maven artifacts:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecayenne-1000/
> Assemblies: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cayenne/3.1RC1/
>
> Andrus
Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1
Posted by Aristedes Maniatis <ar...@maniatis.org>.
Looks good. +1. It looks like the maven release plugin left behind a bit of cruft in the source directories compared to the raw svn. There are a few "pom.xml.releaseBackup" files. Nothing to worry about, but maybe we want to avoid http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRELEASE-758 by upgrading the maven release plugin past 2.3.1.
Ari
On 8/02/2014 2:33pm, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> I just prepared the release artifacts. Rat and testing results were mentioned in a separate thread. Please evaluate and cast your votes.
>
> Maven artifacts: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecayenne-1000/
> Assemblies: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cayenne/3.1RC1/
>
> Andrus
>
--
-------------------------->
Aristedes Maniatis
GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A