commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Transaction 1.2
Date Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:59:59 GMT
On 1/5/07, Joerg Heinicke <joerg.heinicke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Since RC3 was created (back in July 2006!) there is now the new
> > "Source Header and Copyright Notice Policy" that needs to be complied
> > with: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> >
> > Henri fixed this in the trunk for transaction a few weeks ago - but
> > warrants a new RC IMO.
>
> Ok, that's an issue.
>
> > Also Rahul raised the issue about dependency jars held in the
> > repository - and it looked to me like you were going to change the
> > build to download these automatically, rather than including them in
> > the distro: http://tinyurl.com/yby9hd
>
> We wanted to get out the release as fast as possible. This issue can be
> postponed and addressed later IMO.

The ant build only seems to work for JDK 1.3 when the geronimo jars
are overriden with the sun ones and doesn't work for me for JDK 1.4
(tests fail because it can't find junit). So it seems a waste of time
having them in the repo. I can update the ant build to download the
other jars (or allow them to be specified in a build.properties) if
its important to have a working ant  build for 1.3.

> > I also think given the long time between cutting the RC and voting
> > this makes the case for tagging the repository - initially I wondered
> > where this had been built from as it didn't match any current source -
> > until I releaized it had been done so long ago.
>
> The long time itself is not an issue, nothing has changed on the source code
> since the latest RC except the headers. The commits I did recently don't fix the
> issue (not buildable with JDK 1.3 due to 1.4 compiled dependencies), but only
> show the issue at a different during a build. This itself does not warrant a new
> RC IMO, but as the headers do so, it will be included in that RC as well.

I'm wondering how the RC was created since neither the ant or maven
builds seem to currently produce what RC3 contained. Maybe a
combination of the two was used with some manual intervention? IMO its
important for the release to be easily re-created and the maven1 build
should be used since the ant build seems to have too many problems.

If it helps I can tag and produce another RC (using the maven build).

Niall

> Jörg

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


Mime
View raw message