commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons RDF 0.5.0 from RC1
Date Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:58:45 GMT
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org>
wrote:

> Thanks for the effort, Sergio! And also thanks for the clean-up, Gary!
> About time for a release. (What happened to 0.4.0?)
>

0.4.0 was incorrectly but briefly released to Maven repos out of Nexus
without a VOTE. We decided to burn the release number to avoid confusion,
which it is causing anyway, so we need to better document this.

Gary


>
>
> My vote: +0 (binding): Extra files in the dist archive
>
>
> Checked:  signatures, hashes, builds.
>
>
> Tested with Ubuntu 16.04:
> $ mvn -v
> Apache Maven 3.3.9
> Maven home: /usr/share/maven
> Java version: 1.8.0_151, vendor: Oracle Corporation
> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
> Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
> OS name: "linux", version: "4.10.0-38-generic", arch: "amd64", family:
> "unix"
>
>
>
>
> The commons-rdf-examples still says 0.3.0 in its pom - perhaps we
> should look at a way to add the examples straight to the build so its
> version numbers get updated by the release process -- however I think
> it's good that it has a com.example pom.xml rather than implying to
> fresh Maven users they need to use our <parent> etc.
>
> (btw, the examples compile and run well updated at 0.5.0)
>
>
> About extra files:
>
> I see release.properties and pom.xml.releaseBackup is included in the
> zip file, which is a bit odd. This implies you zipped it up manually?
> This is a bit fragile..
>
>
> I would expect the release file to be the same as
> commons-rdf-parent-0.5.0-src.zip in the Maven repo
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> orgapachecommons-1287/org/apache/commons/commons-rdf-parent/0.5.0/
>
> That archive does not include any releasePackup files or similar. It
> should also be under target/checkout/target  after you released -
> probably then called apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0-src.zip because the
> release profile correctly overrides the local name.
>
>
>
> stain@biggie:~/tmp$ diff -ur from-git from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0
> Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-api:
> pom.xml.releaseBackup
> Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-integration-tests:
> pom.xml.releaseBackup
> Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-jena:
> pom.xml.releaseBackup
> Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-jsonld-java:
> pom.xml.releaseBackup
> Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-rdf4j:
> pom.xml.releaseBackup
> Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-simple:
> pom.xml.releaseBackup
> Only in from-git: .git
> Only in from-git: .gitignore
> Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0: release.properties
> Only in from-git: .travis.yml
>
> stain@biggie:~/tmp$ diff -ur from-git from-repo/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0
> Only in from-git: .git
> Only in from-git: .gitignore
> Only in from-git: .travis.yml
>
> So the one in Maven staging repo more closely match git -- also if
> it's the very same file (although different filename) a pet love of me
> to easily double-check that the staging repo covers directly the
> source of the RC vote.
>
>
> My preference would be to put the renamed -src.zip from the staging
> repo in dist and re-run the VOTE as "RC2" with same staging repo
>
> Of course in this case there is not any harm of those extra files (and
> I verified it still matched git tag and repo archive) - so just a +0
> from me.
>
> On 7 November 2017 at 03:40, Sergio Fernández <wikier@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > coming closed to the Commons PMC procedure, I'd like to update the vote
> > with the following information:
> >
> > * Source release can be found in the office dist area:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/rdf/apache-
> commons-rdf-0.5.0-RC1/
> >
> > * 0.5.0-RC1 tagged at git:
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-rdf.git;a=commit;h=
> ebffdc5890a0f8523b07ff6df8afae461117f832
> >
> > * Hashes and signatures remain as the original email.
> >
> > * Added our GPG keys to the Commons file at
> > https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
> >
> > I hope these changes makes the PMC more conformable about voting the
> > release. If not, please let me know and I'll try to cut a new RC
> addressing
> > any possible issue.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Sergio Fernández <wikier@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> of course, my vote for Apache Commons RDF 0.5.0 from RC1: +1
> (non-binding)
> >>
> >> Thanks for all feedback. I'll try to answer some of the comments
> received
> >> so far.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Aaron Coburn <acoburn@amherst.edu>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I did have some problems building with JDK9 (OS X), first with the
> >> version of
> >> > the JaCoCo plugin and then later (after changing to a more recent
> >> version of
> >> > the plugin) with the japicmp plugin. These would be nice things to
> fix,
> >> but
> >> > I don't see any reason that they need to hold up this release, as the
> >> > JDK8-built artifacts work just fine when running in JDK9.
> >>
> >> I guess most of us we have quite some pending tasks regarding upgrade
> >> / make compatible our different source bases with JDK9.
> >>
> >> So I've registered the request as COMMONSRDF-67.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Bruno P. Kinoshita <
> >> brunodepaulak@yahoo.com.br.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Any plans to use the changes.xml file for next releases?
> >>
> >> Sound like a good idea to me. Registwered as COMMONSRDF-68 for the next
> >> release.
> >>
> >> > I have an automated script that downloads the KEYS file from
> >> https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS,
> >> > and it failed. Then re-read the e-mail and found the KEYS here
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/commonsrdf/KEYS:
> >> >
> >> > Does it matter which KEYS file is used after the component has been
> >> graduated?
> >> > I'm fine with the KEYS file location being in the vote thread, but
> just
> >> thought it
> >> > would be worth checking.
> >>
> >> As I pointed in a previous thread, although we graduated as a component,
> >> most of the team behind the RDF component we are not PMC members. I
> don't
> >> have karma for that, but someone should add our KEYS there. I just
> though
> >> the file we had during incubation was good enough.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Another minor nit pick: Notice file message was not updated to 2017.
> >>
> >> Do you think that could be blocking? Well, noted as COMMONSRDF-69 for
> now.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message