commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergio Fernández <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons RDF 0.5.0 from RC1
Date Sun, 12 Nov 2017 22:15:21 GMT
Stian, I made a mistake, so we preferred to skip 0.4.0 for safety.

About the release itself, that's reason enough gor me for a RC2. The I can
also align with Jena's recent release and so on. I hope to have time to
prepare it within the next couple of days. Any further feedback will be
more than welcome.

Then, please, consider this vote CANCELLED.

On Nov 10, 2017 05:47, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <> 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?)

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:

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 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 in the Maven repo

That archive does not include any releasePackup files or similar. It
should also be under target/checkout/target  after you released -
probably then called 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:
Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-integration-tests:
Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-jena:
Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-jsonld-java:
Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-rdf4j:
Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-simple:
Only in from-git: .git
Only in from-git: .gitignore
Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0:
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 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 <> 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:
> * 0.5.0-RC1 tagged at git:
> * Hashes and signatures remain as the original email.
> * Added our GPG keys to the Commons file at
> 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
> any possible issue.
> Cheers,
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Sergio Fernández <>
>> Hi,
>> of course, my vote for Apache Commons RDF 0.5.0 from RC1: +1
>> 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 <> 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 <
>>> 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
>> > and it failed. Then re-read the e-mail and found the KEYS here
>> >
>> > 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
>> Thanks.

Stian Soiland-Reyes

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

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