Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Daemon 1.1.0 based on RC2
From: Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Reply-To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
References: <140579de-09e7-b184-8892-b9539c5eb93e@apache.org>
Message-ID: <93747c95-aa50-9527-44b5-3a0aa7dab592@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:40:23 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <140579de-09e7-b184-8892-b9539c5eb93e@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:40:29 -0000

On 09/11/17 20:15, Mark Thomas wrote:

<snip/>

> The proposed release is:
> 
> The proposed 1.1.0 release based on RC2 is:
> [ ] Broken   - do not release because...
> [ ] Approved - go ahead and release as 1.1.0

I'm undecided.

From a functional, policy and packaging point of view I don't have any
concerns. However, test JARs seem fairly pointless to have in Maven
Central and there is benefit in providing the various binaries via Maven
Central.

While I don't want to delay the release unnecessarily, I'm leaning
towards an RC3 with a set of uploads to the Nexus staging repo that
aligns with the 1.0.15 release. While I could probably figure out how to
do that manually, just re-rolling the release is probably going to be
quicker.

Thoughts? Comments? Feedback on the review below - particularly the
website also welcome.

Detailed review follows.

Mark


Java version
------------

The minimum Java version is 6 but Daemon can't be built with Java 6 (the
Maven toolchain requires Java 7). That should be OK but merits
additional checks.

Checking one of the class files in commons-daemon-1.1.0.jar it is
version 50 as expected.


Unit tests
----------

The test code isn't a unit test, it is a sample.


Maven Central
-------------

It doesn't do any harm uploading the test JARs to Maven Central but I'm
leaning towards excluding them in future.

The binary and native src distributions for 1.1.0 were not uploaded to
Maven Central (strictly they were but were then removed before the repo
was closed). The 1.0.11 to 1.0.15 releases did include those
distributions. There are benefits to having them on Maven Central so I'm
leaning towards including them in future.


Integration testing
-------------------

Windows with Tomcat 7.0.82
Tested by replacing the Windows binaries with those from Commons Daemon
1.1.0.
- Digital signatures are valid (Symantec code signing)
- Passed simple smoke test running on Java 6
- Configuring Java 9 specific options didn't prevent running on Java 6
  (as expected)
- Java 9 options used when running on Java 9 (needed to remove
   endorsedDirs setting - as expected)

Linux with Tomcat trunk
- Warnings compiling jsvc (no change from 1.0.15)
- Runs under Java 8
- Runs under Java 9


Packaging
---------

I compared the contents of various artefacts in the 1.1.0 release with
the equivalent from 1.0.15:

- commons-daemon-n.n.n-bin-windows.zip
  - No ia64 dir (as expected)
  - Otherwise file/dir names the same
  - Differences in files all expected
- commons-daemon-n.n.n-bin.tar.gz
  - no apidocs/src-html directory (looks OK)
  - differences in generated Javadoc files  (expected)
  - Otherwise file/dir names the same
  - Differences in files all expected
- commons-daemon-n.n.n-native-src.tar.gz
  - CHANGES.txt removed as expected
  - Otherwise file/dir names the same
  - Differences in files all expected
- commons-daemon-n.n.n-src.zip
  - CHANGES.txt -> changes.xml (expected)
  - Maven source layout changed slightly (expected)
  - Otherwise file/dir names the same
  - Differences in files all expected

Overall I'm pleasantly surprised. With the time between releases,
changes in the release process and my unfamiliarity with both Maven and
the release process I was expected some packaging issues but all looks
to be OK.


Web site
--------

Not part of the release but since I'm here...

The link for "Javadoc (SVN latest)" just points to the latest release.
Should this point to a CI build, be removed or something else?

What is the purpose of the Jira report? Do we need to add some more fix
versions, remove the report or something else?

RAT report suggests we should add an ASF header to HOWTO-RELEASE.txt but
that is a minor issue I'll fix shortly.

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