commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons RDF 0.5.0 from RC1
Date Fri, 03 Nov 2017 01:27:30 GMT
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.

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