Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=nCdN66CqT7KnxgzWE5BTmUeBibYtU8GKT41VtqhY1rRATa8he95+/Rn+MPxsUUTCEApbj0dpGNBnulLa8Jfoyg0Zzh/1F9oycSSO3Y0VyGS/wgqjea+cn72y1iGPeCK0/CG+NQt10RgQA1rbPNyALiEDcrUnA67IROlNf0JqaXw=;
Message-ID: <395011.21187.qm@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <969720.89938.qm@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <y1u8wj0zecc.fsf@v30161.1blu.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Maarten Coene <maarten_coene@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ivy 2.1.0-rc2 Release
To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <y1u8wj0zecc.fsf@v30161.1blu.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


Thanks for the feedback Stefan,
I'll take them into consideration for the next release.

To answer your most important remark first: the license for jsch is included in the LICENSE file which is part of the distribution. Should we split this into multiple files instead?

Some of the documentation is indeed modified by xookie (for instance the release version is added to the HTML title tag).
Maybe we should add these generated files to svn as well?

regards,
Maarten


----- Original Message ----
From: Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
To: dev@ant.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:45:39 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ivy 2.1.0-rc2 Release

On 2009-07-05, Maarten Coene <maarten_coene@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You can download it from this URL:
> http://people.apache.org/~maartenc/ivy/staging/2.1.0-rc2/

checksums and signatures are fine.

The zips contain an empty doc/reports/ivy directory that is not inside
the tars - intentional?  Certainly no reason to hold up the release.

The -with-deps archives don't contain build.xml, this looks wrong but
may be fixed with the next RC or the final packaging.

The -with-deps archives should contain the JSch license.

The svn external for xookie should use a fixed revision number.

There are a few files and directories in the svn tag that are not
inside the source distribution.  Is this intentional?

The docs in svn and the source distribution are different - do they
get modfied via Xookie during the distribution build?

The top level ivy.xml files in svn and the source dist are different
(looks as if the XML formatting had changed).

A few files are inside the src dist that are not in svn

,----
| Only in apache-ivy-2.1.0-rc2/doc: book.html
| Only in apache-ivy-2.1.0-rc2/doc: reports
| Only in apache-ivy-2.1.0-rc2/: ivy.xsd
| Only in apache-ivy-2.1.0-rc2/test/repositories/checkmodified: ivy-1.0.xml
| Only in apache-ivy-2.1.0-rc2/test/repositories/checkmodified: mod1.1-1.0.jar
| Only in apache-ivy-2.1.0-rc2/test/repositories/norevision: ivy-mod1.1.xml
| Only in apache-ivy-2.1.0-rc2/test/repositories/norevision: mod1.1.jar
`----

rat isn't happy with a few files in doc (most of the in tutorials/log)
and test, but none of them look serious.  I can provide the complete
report if you want to.

> Do you vote for the release of these binaries?

The only thing we really release are the source distributions,
anything else are convenience builds - picking nits, I know.

I'm in discussion with myself whether the lack of JSch license is
enough to veto the release, I won't give it my +1 for now.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org