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 18:22:20 GMT
Awesome,

thanks Zoe.

Regards
JB

On 01/26/2011 06:24 PM, zoe slattery wrote:
> On 26/01/2011 17:12, 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?
> Yes :-). I'll merge the changes, respin the JPA component, create an
> RC01 and restart the vote. Thanks,
> Zoe
>> 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