Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <477CADB0.2030907@oliver-heger.de>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:41:04 +0100
From: Oliver Heger <oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc2)
References: <e75283b10801011206i48354a9cxd76064a1597a62b7@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e75283b10801011206i48354a9cxd76064a1597a62b7@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The source distros look okay, but can it be that the binary distros are
missing the binaries? Both the zip and the tar.gz only contain LICENSE
and NOTICE and the site directory.

Other than that I only found a few (very minor) points:
- When building with the different build systems the resulting jar does
not always include the license files: The maven 1 build is okay, the
maven 2 build does not include LICENSE and NOTICE, and the ant build
only includes NOTICE.

- On the site, the clirr report only shows a blanc page. (Well, this is
probably a good sign, but a bit strange ;-)

Oliver

Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have prepared a second release candidate of commons-fileupload
> 1.2.1. A list of changes since rc1 and things that I haven't changes,
> can be found below.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jochen
> 
> 
> [ ] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>There's a minor problem with the hashes.
>>The hash shold be followed by a single space, and then the flag which
>>is '*' for binary (space for text), followed by the filename.
> 
> 
> This should be as requested now. I'd like to point out, that I find
> such a specific format more than inconenient. No program that I am
> aware of, creates this format. It should be sufficient to have the
> first word (the actual checksum) right.
> 
> 
>>The version does not appear in the download section on the home page
>>as a release or release candidate.
> 
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
>>The changes report does not show 1.2.1. Several changes are shown for
>>1.3 - should that be 1.2.1?
> 
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
>>The pom.xml is missing the license header.
> 
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
>>The maven 1 build declares its version as 1.3-SNAPSHOT and has a
>>dependency to commons-io 1.4-SNAPSHOT. In the <versions> section
>>an element for the current release is missing.
> 
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
>>The ant build also produces an artifact with the version number
>>1.3-SNAPSHOT.
> 
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> 
>>There are 40 checkstyle errors in the report.
> 
> 
> Reduced to 6, which are basically insufficiencies of checkstyle.
> 
> 
>>When trying the m2 build I got the error that commons-io 1.3.2 could
>>not be downloaded. Indeed this version does not seem to be in the
>>central maven repository. Does anybody know why this is the case?
> 
> 
> Fixed the groupId to org.apache.commons.
> 
> 
>>It is kept, if the comment with the license is put after the project tag.
> 
> 
> The license in the POM file is now immediately after the "project" tag,
> 
> 
> I haven't responded to the following suggestions, though:
> 
> 
>>The HTML title is a bit inconsistent in the reports section. Most of
>>the pages on the site have a title of the form:
> 
> 
>>FileUpload - sectionname - Browser name
> 
> 
>>[The current website has FileUpload in the second position, but the
>>new layout is better]
> 
> 
>>However some of the Report section names don't show up in the title.
>>This affects:
>>Changes Report
>>Clirr
>>Jira Report
>>Maven Surefire
> 
> 
>>It's not at all clear what the Jira Report relates to.
>>Also its entries don't seem to be in any particular order.
>>Won't Fix is shown as Won ' t Fix which looks rather odd.
>>It would help to show the Type and perhaps Priority of the issues.
> 
> 
>>Rather a lot of blank space in the "Anonymous access" section in:
>>http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/\site/source-repository.html
> 
> 
> These are all created with the standard Maven 2 with the settings as
> specified in commons-parent pom, version 5. I have no intention to
> change this per project.
> 
> 
> 
>>The SVN links all point to the tag 1.2.1RC1 - I wonder whether it
>>might not be better to point to the parent directory which contains
>>tags/branches and trunk?
> 
> 
> My intention is to copy the rc2 tag to the final tag upon a positive
> vote. I see no other way to create the distributables now without
> moving svn tags.
> 


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