cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1
Date Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:57:56 GMT
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 <andrus@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 <mkienenb@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
>> <andrus@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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message