Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHe_5p209DGhNFgSkf9zBZg9-nbZdbtjpEk67kAQ2ikXBbS_fw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHe_5p3JE-NbcDWCTpL91r--1C=XeuavzFu+K8R2LARGLrhi_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <571355054.1210919.1509620451124@mail.yahoo.com> <CAHe_5p2U-VBB7UcLJnuaNp2Xmir_9y9RTMkGWyCWkz=c5UrVdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHe_5p209DGhNFgSkf9zBZg9-nbZdbtjpEk67kAQ2ikXBbS_fw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:46:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMBJEmWJianpGpO8qcWPCkEgoSBuvDF15mC8d9C9So60fJFS4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons RDF 0.5.0 from RC1
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Cc: "Bruno P. Kinoshita" <brunodepaulak@yahoo.com.br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
archived-at: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:47:21 -0000

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: "uni=
x"


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/or=
g/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 Fern=C3=A1ndez <wikier@apache.org> wrot=
e:
> 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=3Dcommons-rdf.git;a=3Dcommit;h=
=3Debffdc5890a0f8523b07ff6df8afae461117f832
>
> * 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 addressi=
ng
> any possible issue.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Sergio Fern=C3=A1ndez <wikier@apache.org>=
 wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> of course, my vote for Apache Commons RDF 0.5.0 from RC1: +1 (non-bindin=
g)
>>
>> Thanks for all feedback. I'll try to answer some of the comments receive=
d
>> 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 jus=
t
>> 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 thoug=
h
>> 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 no=
w.
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>


--=20
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