Mailing-List: contact security-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of raul.benito.garcia@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.196 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=lYTq9iKgHFTESERzZQ2QkgEJwQZ6lD49osFhGGkKGZnZHZDrxeqy2B2tRM+kwMJFXpXC44SkYtjoAOS9n0xOB92+hUAOlIHEjRQaXC77kn9h/mJquJU3ED1WnC+8QyTHPkiaTUkXz+pPWp7o5NrF0ZmzaR5n6oJFb5kZZjrPbFA=
Message-ID: <949ac9410509141100d59734a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:00:35 +0200
From: Raul Benito <raul.benito.garcia@gmail.com>
Reply-To: raul@apache.org
To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] xml-sec java 1.3 release?
In-Reply-To: <43286393.2070901@amberpoint.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <949ac94105091215521595bc0e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4326DC09.5090404@amberpoint.com> <4327DB54.4050802@amberpoint.com>
	 <4328545C.9010108@Sun.COM> <43286393.2070901@amberpoint.com>

I was also going to suggest a RC2 jar, for testing.

I'll think that doing a RC jar right now is the best way to test the
changes (There are a lot of people interested in testing that are
afraid of generate themselves a jar).

So hat do you all think if I go ahead and do a RC2.jar and after two
weeks call for another release vote?


Regards,


Raul


On 9/14/05, Vishal Mahajan <vmahajan@amberpoint.com> wrote:
> I think your suggestion makes complete sense. We should give at least a
> week of testing (after significant check-ins) before an RC goes out and
> probably little more time before for the final release. Thanks for
> bringing this up and hopefully we can incorporate this going forward.
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Vishal
>=20
> Sean Mullan wrote:
>=20
> > Although I have reviewed these fixes and they look fine and fairly
> > low-risk, I think it probably makes sense to allow a few days (a
> > week?) to let others test and make sure there are no regressions.
> > Comments? I'm fairly new to the process, but I just think it makes
> > sense to test the final bits as much as possible before they are
> > released. What are the guidelines? I don't necessarily think we need
> > to cut an RC2, but we should at least build an xmlsec.jar and make it
> > available for testing.
> >
> > --Sean
> >
> > Vishal Mahajan wrote:
> >
> >> Vishal Mahajan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Raul,
> >>>
> >>> I have filed three bugs (with suggested patches) - 36638, 36639, and
> >>> 36640, which I found recently.
> >>> I'll check-in the fix for each of these tomorrow
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Done with the fixes.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Vishal
> >>
> >>> and after that it's +1 from me.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Vishal
> >>>
> >>> Raul Benito wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Sorry for the delay calling a vote but I've been really busy with my
> >>>> day job(deadline approaching) and I wanted to close all bugs before
> >>>> doing the release (thing that  I manage to do tonight).
> >>>>
> >>>> But after a waiting time, and with all the bugs closed, I'll think i=
s
> >>>> time to graduate 1.3RC1 to release status.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you thing?
> >>>>
> >>>> [ ] +1 , OK go ahead.
> >>>> [ ] +0, [ ] -1, Why we don't do RC2 before.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Raul
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20


--=20
http://r-bg.com