Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cayenne-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cayenne-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DD8B106A8 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:49:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 34160 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2014 15:49:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cayenne-dev-archive@cayenne.apache.org Received: (qmail 33967 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2014 15:49:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cayenne.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cayenne.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cayenne.apache.org Received: (qmail 33294 invoked by uid 99); 18 Feb 2014 15:49:22 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:49:22 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mkienenb@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.47] (HELO mail-qa0-f47.google.com) (209.85.216.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:49:17 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id j5so23780848qaq.34 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:48:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HD7kxH5YfebErQR/jrJRWFe8Z/Bd/f6HMUCt42l1UjQ=; b=EFdQSnECCNhiyyG4aIEC6zU8itm/GlxjrlhN7cmo3UjbnQWF7pyuCH/w3iOtCRGp6j tyqjntPJGdQUroYkNkLz8UdLUIBMyNABZiU6n0P2DO4KxBnSa2n01Tri+YoELeiMwEMh bAgm3G5kP/Ow/S/yD2UperRou94cIAwDVzCqKCsBc6qq2aLdXhkOd9bk5mPgFMbeWWj8 ADPZvvInkNRUxKF8yA03VTSelu/HTWBT+AP3uAPucJV+OS10taygBmsZEHT0+/Wd1AAU Hdbda8kzyMT8vcxrlPjZgrzSAHYFZxvYqX54q6L6xL9IlEzpCoRxK98iB7TQWdUDQV1Z 1uMQ== X-Received: by 10.140.89.71 with SMTP id u65mr3276812qgd.93.1392738536382; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:48:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.96.181.9 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:48:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <8F5EB504-DB53-4B85-8265-46AF14458FA2@objectstyle.org> <8B63FB6F-5649-4AE0-ACF6-21210590CBFE@objectstyle.org> <38C923DC-0547-4DE9-A315-4F78E47C2B21@objectstyle.org> From: Mike Kienenberger Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:48:35 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [VOTE] 3.1RC1 To: dev@cayenne.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org No, that's fine. It shouldn't block the release. I'd prefer we used the same jdk to build the release for all systems, but perhaps that's not practical. On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Andrus Adamchik w= rote: > 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 piec= e that guarantees valid binary assemblies regardless of JDK is this: > > > maven-compiler-plugin > 2.3.2 > > 1.5 > 1.5 > > > > > Andrus > > On Feb 16, 2014, at 10:37 PM, Andrus Adamchik wr= ote: > >> Sorry, I should've waited for your vote and thanks a lot for doing a tho= rough 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 differe= nt JDKs. So that's causing these small difference. I'd say there are no ess= ential differences to worry about (although I'll try to keep my JDKs in syn= c 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 JD= K 1.5. If we actually see a problem, we should definitely pull the binary a= nd redo it, but I don't think we will. >> >> Andrus >> >> >> On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrot= e: >>> I didn't realized the vote was closed, and finally finished my review t= oday: >>> >>> 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 >>> wrote: >>>> I am adding my +1. And I am closing the vote. Here is the list of vote= s: >>>> >>>> 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 w= ill post the files now and update the downloads page. >>>> >>>> Thanks everyone, and let's get ready for 3.2 vote soon :) >>>> >>>> Andrus >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >