commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Commons RDF 0.5.0 from RC1
Date Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:52:22 GMT
Sorry for the extra work. RC2 will go smother ;-)

On Nov 13, 2017 11:35, "Gary Gregory" <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for your diligence in working through the release process! :-)
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Sergio Fernández <wikier@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > The vote for releasing Apache Commons RDF 0.5.0 from RC1 is CANCELLED.
> >
> > In the next few days I'll prepare a new RC.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 5:52 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Can you please reply to this thread and change the subject to add
> > > "[RESULT]" to the subject? This will close the thread.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > On Nov 12, 2017 15:15, "Sergio Fernández" <wikier@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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" <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?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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