felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Felix Http Service version 2.0.0
Date Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:36:55 GMT
Hi,

Sten Roger Sandvik schrieb:
> You are right. We should probably skip version 2.0.0 and go ahead to do a
> version 2.0.1. I do not tag 2.0.0 since it's a failed release.

Or brather 2.0.2 because this is bundle release. The reason has been
outline before but basically it is because Maven thinks 2.0.1 is more
recent than 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT while OSGi thinks 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT is more recent.

For this reason we reserve odd numbers for SNAPSHOTs and even numbers
for releases. [This rule only applies for bundles and not for maven
bundles were we just increment as usual]

Regards
Felix

> 
> / srs
> 
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org>wrote:
> 
>> On 9/30/09 23:31, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback. I will check out the MD5 and SHA1 digests. Also
>>> will fix the issues that you are listing here. Was not sure how to do the
>>> NOTICE file so it was just a copy from something else :-) Do it need to be
>>> a
>>> 2.0.1 release? Could I just rollback the release by rolling back the pom's
>>> and delete the tag?
>>>
>>>
>> For me, personally, I don't care. However, officially, the issue is since
>> it was a failed release, we shouldn't release it all, because some people
>> might have grabbed the last JARs and are treating them as the official
>> release knowingly or not. So, the only way to prevent that is to not have
>> that release version at all, which means we do 2.0.1 instead.
>>
>> As for why the digests failed in the first place, I don't really know. I
>> thought Maven just did this automatically. I am a release newbie myself, so
>> maybe someone else has some advice.
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>>
>>  BR,
>>> Sten Roger Sandvik
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Richard S. Hall<heavy@ungoverned.org
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -1
>>>>
>>>> There are quite a few issues, but it is really not all that
>>>> bad...actually,
>>>> there is only one issue that is causing me to give a -1, which is the
>>>> fact
>>>> that the MD5 and SHA1 digests don't appear to match for me. Not sure why
>>>> that would be the case.
>>>>
>>>> There are also a raft of other more minor issues that would not have
>>>> caused
>>>> a -1 necessarily, but now we can fix those too. They are:
>>>>
>>>>   * The dependencies on OSGi should be on the official JARs at the
>>>>     appropriate version level needed (i.e., lowest acceptable version).
>>>>   * It appears that all NOTICE use the same name (Apache Felix HTTP
>>>>     Service), but it should be different for each subproject module.
>>>>     For example, the bridge module should be "Apache Felix HTTP
>>>>     Service Bridge".
>>>>   * NOTICE file for api says it includes OSGi code, but it doesn't.
>>>>     Should also include Apache under "uses".
>>>>   * NOTICE file for base says it includes OSGi code, but it doesn't.
>>>>     Should also include Apache under "uses".
>>>>   * NOTICE file for bridge should include Apache under "uses".
>>>>   * NOTICE file for bundle should include Apache under "uses".
>>>>   * NOTICE file for jetty should include Apache under "uses".
>>>>   * NOTICE file for proxy says it includes OSGi, but it only uses.
>>>>     Also should include Apache in "uses".
>>>>   * NOTICE for samples bridge WAR file is not in META-INF directory,
>>>>     neither are LICENSE files. Should verify dependencies listed in
>>>>     NOTICE file.
>>>>   * NOTICE for samples filter says it includes OSGi, but it only uses.
>>>>     Also should include Apache in "uses".
>>>>   * NOTICE for samples whiteboard says it includes OSGi, but it only
>>>>     uses. Also should include Apache in "uses".
>>>>   * NOTICE for whiteboard says it includes OSGi, but it only uses.
>>>>     Also should include Apache in "uses".
>>>>
>>>> Note that if we have dependencies on Apache software, we still list them
>>>> in
>>>> the "uses" section of the NOTICE file...this is overly cautious, but not
>>>> a
>>>> big deal if we already have to keep track of third-party dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> Doing a release is difficult, so trying it as a newbie is to be
>>>> commended.
>>>> :-) At this point, we will need to scrap this release and do a 2.0.1
>>>> release
>>>> with fixes for all of the above. Still, the main issue was the digests.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but good work none the less. Let me know if you have any
>>>> questions.
>>>>
>>>> ->  richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/28/09 22:59, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have prepared a release candidate for the improved http service that
I
>>>>> contributed earlier (FELIX-1456). It is versioned 2.0.0 since it's a
>>>>> major
>>>>> refactoring and includes much more functionality than the original
>>>>> http.jetty module. Docs will be available on wiki very soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is my first release ever so hopefully I have done all the things
>>>>> right
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> We solved 7 issues in this release:
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX/fixforversion/12314224
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 8 outstanding issues:
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX/component/12310340
>>>>>
>>>>> Staging repository:
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/felix-staging-007/
>>>>>
>>>>> You can use this UNIX script to download the release and verify the
>>>>> signatures:
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/check_staged_release.sh
>>>>>
>>>>> Usage:
>>>>> sh check_staged_release.sh 007 /tmp/felix-staging
>>>>>
>>>>> Please vote to approve this release:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>>>>> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>>>
>>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> Sten Roger Sandvik
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> 

Mime
View raw message