commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6
Date Sun, 13 Oct 2013 23:38:00 GMT
On 13 October 2013 20:43, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/13/13 12:39 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 10/12/13 10:31 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added
>>> read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support
>>> for 7z.
>>>
>>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
>>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
>>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
>>> date anyway.
>>>
>>> Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here:
>>>     https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/
>>>     (svn revision 3254)
>>>
>>>   Maven artifacts are here:
>>>     https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/
>>>
>>>   Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes:
>>>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>>>
>>>   The tag is here:
>>>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/
>>>     (svn revision 1531616)
>>>
>>>   Site:
>>>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/
>>>
>>>   Clirr Report (compared to 1.5):
>>>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html
>>>
>>>   RAT Report:
>>>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html
>>>
>>>   KEYS:
>>>   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>>
>>>   Please review the release candidate and vote.
>>>   This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530
>>>   GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of
>>>   this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday.
>>>
>>>   [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>>>   [ ] +0 OK, but...
>>>   [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>>>   [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>> +0
>> Code builds fine for me on OSX 1.7.0_21-b12
>> Jar, tarball contents, notice, license look fine.
>> Sigs, hashes are good.
>> +0 instead of +1 because the title on the release notes is incorrect
>> - should be 1.6.
>>
>> One thing to verify:  the manifest says the build was done using
>> 1.6.0_27.  Is that recent enough to include the fix for the javadoc
>> XSS vulnerabilty?
>
> I am sorry.  I forgot one other thing to verify.  The clirr report
> complains about dropping a field.  Is this spurious / not really an
> issue?

Depends.

It's certainly not strictly binary (or source) conpatible.

But whether it is an issue depends on whether any 3rd party code is
using it or not.

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

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


Mime
View raw message