aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré ...@nanthrax.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
Date Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:22:05 GMT
Agree.

We should merge on 0.3.

Regards
JB

On 01/26/2011 06:12 PM, Timothy Ward wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> ARIES-556 was raised as a critical bug against 0.2 on Monday, and has been fixed in trunk.
It would be good to get it into the 0.3 release rather than have a known critical bug in the
JPA code. Is there a chance of respinning the JPA component for 0.3?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> From: hughesj@apache.org
>> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:37:42 +0000
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00
>> To: dev@aries.apache.org
>>
>> On 24 January 2011 18:34, zoe slattery  wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2011 17:23, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So far, I've checked the source zips' .md5 .sha1 .asc .asc.md5
>>>> .asc.sha1 files. I've run mvn -Prat on the unzipped source and get a
>>>> problem for each of the DEPENDENCIES files. I think we hit this in 0.2
>>>> and 0.1 and decided to overlook it as they are generated files.
>>>
>>> Curious - I have just run 'mvn -Prat install' in the release candidate
>>> branch and I _don't_ get a problem with DEPENDENCIES files.
>>> I actually used mvn rat:check when I was checking the release artifacts -
>>> didn't see a problem with DEPENDENCIES there either.
>>>
>>> You are Maven 3? Could that be the difference, I'm running Maven 2.2.1.
>>
>> I seem to remember seeing this with Maven 2.2.1 from before. I think
>> what happens when doing the release is the DEPENDENCIES file is
>> created then the source zip is created and the DEPENDENCIES file is
>> included in that. Moving from Maven 2.2.1 to 3, I don't think RAT has
>> changed.
>>
>> I just tried it with Maven 2.2.1 and get the same result:
>>
>> *****************************************************
>> Files with Apache License headers will be marked AL
>> Binary files (which do not require AL headers) will be marked B
>> Compressed archives will be marked A
>> Notices, licenses etc will be marked N
>> AL default-parent/java5-parent/pom.xml
>> AL default-parent/pom.xml
>> !????? DEPENDENCIES
>> N LICENSE
>> N NOTICE
>> AL pom.xml
>>
>> *****************************************************
>>
>> I don't think it's worth respinning the release for this, as it is a
>> generated file and doesn't have any intellectual property in it.
>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm still to check the binaries though, but not today.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>> On 24 January 2011 13:53, zoe slattery  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>
>>>>> I've staged a release candidate 00 for the 0.3 release. Please use this
>>>>> thread for any discussion. If you check the release please will you say
>>>>> exactly what you checked - even if it passes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Zoė
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>   		 	   		

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
---------------------------------
  HomePage
http://www.nanthrax.net
---------------------------------
  Contacts
jbonofre@apache.org
jb@nanthrax.net
---------------------------------
  OpenSource
BuildProcess/AutoDeploy
http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net
Apache ServiceMix
http://servicemix.apache.org
-----------------------------------
PGP : 17D4F086

Mime
View raw message