freemarker-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Dekany <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating
Date Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:19:48 GMT
Thursday, January 7, 2016, 9:35:08 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:

> Hi,
> I guess the timing picked is not the best for having more people on
> board...

Yeah, but it was simply when the code was ready.

> BTW, the release manager can also vote a release.

When he knows what's he doing... :)

> So far I've successfully checked in the source release: 
> * signatures and digests
> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
> * build sources in a clean environment (oracle java
> 8u66+8u65arm-1~webupd8~1 on debian 64bits).
> Some comments:
> * Release is not tagged in git tags, and vote mail does not contain commit id to check.

Indeed, the commit ID was missing.

As of tagging, I used to do that when the commit has actually made it
to become a public release, because tags are public. Is that good that

> * There is a URL to the maven staging area.

You wanted to write that there's *no* URL? (We had no Maven access yet
when it was done.)

> * KEYS file contains only one public gpg, the one from the release
> manager for this release candidate, formally that's fine. Please,
> all other committers should add theirs keys there too for preparing
> for next releases (in case someone else jumps in the release manager role).
> * Tarballs contain wrong source layout, the root directory contains
> no version details (apache-freemaker-src and
> apache-freemarker-gae-src respectively).

OK. (The misinformation came from "For
project, Apache Foo (say) with source and binary types, it is
conventional for the main binary to unpack to apache-foo and the
source to apache-foo-src.".)

> * The section about the "files developed outside the FreeMarker
> project" in the LICENSE file should actually go in the NOTICE,
> specifying details there. I'd say the path should be full from the
> root of the sources: src/main/resources/freemarker/ext/...

I did these.

I wonder, since the owner of FreeMarker is now the ASF, do we still
need to add notices for those DTD-s that are also Apache products
(though from a different project)?

> * Also I'd move the "Historical notes" to the README.

I have instead deleted them, if that's fine. I don't think they are
useful enough (or well visible for lawyer-types) to be in the README.
There's a page about the project history on the web site which covers
this topic.

> * Source tree contains some JARs at
> src/test/resources/freemarker/ext/jsp/webapps/ that shoudl be noticed in NOTICE

Added them, also the OpenOffice files. These are all produced by the
FreeMarker project BTW.

> Because that, I have to vote -1 for releasing FreeMarker
> 2.3.24-rc01-incubating.

Thanks for your remarks, I will soon come up with a new attempt to
vote on!

> First ASF release is very important for every project, so all the
> work done now will make much easier next ones.
> Cheers,
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Daniel Dekany <> wrote:
> I have updated
> so that
> the tar.gz-s has a top-level apache-freemarker ro
> apache-freemarker-src directory in them. Nothing else has been
> changed.
> Sunday, January 3, 2016, 1:44:17 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>> Dear Mentors, and everyone else!
>> As it turns out, this Release Candidate will go through the same
>> procedure as a stable release would (2 round of voting, etc.), because
>> (or, if?) we want to publish it on the home page for a month before
>> the final release, giving people time for testing, which legally makes
>> it to a "real" release.
>> To everyone, if you can, please test this release with your own
>> FreeMarker-dependent projects (like OFBiz), and in general try to find
>> rough edges, tell your insights. Here's the binary with full
>> documentation and change log:
>> Dear Mentors, please check if this complies with the ASF policies,
>> etc., then vote! Also check if you agree with this dist directory
>> structure (this will be our first ASF release):
>> Notes:
>> - "gae" is the Google App Engine compliant variant. Most users can just
>>   ignore it.
>> - See the README for the build instructions.
>> - We aren't yet in the Apache Maven repo - I will soon ask Infra to
>>   set things up. Note that this RC will only go to the staging repo even
>>   then, as otherwise it would be synced with the Central (right?).
>> - You can run `ant rat`. If you extract the two distributions (I mean
>>   the binary and source archives) under build/dist/bin and
>>   build/dist/src, it will also check those. (Or if you ran `ant dist`
>>   earlier.)
>> The vote is open for 72 hours, or until the necessary number of
>> binding votes (3 +1) is reached.
>>     [ ] +1 Release this package
>>     [ ]  0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
>>     [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>> If this vote passes, we will start a 2nd vote at general@incubator.
> --
> Thanks,
>  Daniel Dekany

 Daniel Dekany

View raw message