Re: [VOTE] Release Shale 1.0.5
On 6/2/08, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A set of artifacts for Shale 1.0.5 is now ready. Please review the artifacts mentioned below and vote accordingly. Since this is my first time as release manager I wouldn't be surprised if something is missing or if I've included things that shouldn't be included, so I'd appreciate as thorough a review as you have time for. In particular I see a lot of Maven artifacts and zip files that were not included in previous releases so I wonder if they are meant to be release (the *test* artifacts for example). snip/ Thanks for putting the bits together Greg! Two high-level comments: 1) The *test* artifacts aren't meant to be distributed via releases, or used for anything beyond local testing, IIRC. (the usecases apps are meant to demo features). I would prefer we leave them out, to avoid many differences in this point release. You should be able to just blow those *test* directories / artifacts away in the m2 staging repo / dist area. 2) In the ballot below, can you please revise the first couple of lines to read ... [ ] +1 for beta release (Binding, PMC members only) [ ] +1 for beta release (community members who have reviewed the bits) ... or some such. The important bit is to note the initial quality as beta. This is one of the things I did not do when posting the CfV for v1.0.4 (and we had to clarify that in a separate thread later). This way the release announcement can state the initial quality to be beta (and that it will potentially be revised later). Also, I think we can even do away with the PMC / otherwise distinction in the ballot. I'll leave that to you. These changes are fairly superficial, so shouldn't require any rebuilding (and this vote thread can continue, IMO). -Rahul (5) Vote Please review these artifacts, signatures and checksums, and vote whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.5. --8 [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits [ ] +0 [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released A quality vote (per module, where necessary) will be held later on if this passes. Thank you!! Greg
Re: [VOTE] Release Shale 1.0.5
On 6/4/08, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -1 The copyright date in the notice file is 2007 instead of 2008 Aside from the copyright date, noted above, I only verified that notice.txt, manifest.mf and license.txt existed Probably needs to be fixed, though I could argue that If there haven't been any significant code changes this year, then 2007 may be correct. The copyright date starts when something is created, and I'm not sure packaging existing stuff==creation. I wouldn't stop the release because of this if it's the only problem. snip/ Yup, I wouldn't either. -Rahul
Re: [VOTE] Release Shale 1.0.5
On 6/5/08, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) The *test* artifacts aren't meant to be distributed via releases, or used for anything beyond local testing, IIRC. (the usecases apps are meant to demo features). I would prefer we leave them out, to avoid many differences in this point release. You should be able to just blow those *test* directories / artifacts away in the m2 staging repo / dist area. Thanks, Rahul. Just to clarify, you're suggesting that we include the usecase apps in the release, but *not* include the *-test artifacts (except the ones that are core, like shale-test itself), correct? snip/ Yes, so the list of artifacts in v1.0.4 listed here (except obvious changes such as shale-tiles): http://markmail.org/message/kpy7tlfj6m2xq7e6 ... or some such. The important bit is to note the initial quality as beta. This is one of the things I did not do when posting the CfV for v1.0.4 (and we had to clarify that in a separate thread later). This way the release announcement can state the initial quality to be beta (and that it will potentially be revised later). I don't have a problem with that. IIRC, other projects (Struts, Tiles) don't specify the quality at all until after the release is posted. They just push a release and later declare it alpha, beta, or GA. I don't mind specifying initially that this will be beta if that makes people more comfortable voting. snap/ I have a slight preference for starting with a beta, but its your call :-) That won't affect my vote (I intend to check the artifacts by Saturday). -Rahul
Re: [VOTE] Release Shale 1.0.5
Greg, I may be getting ahead of the processes, but below is what I have tested with My applications. +1 for shale-dialog-basic +1 for shale-dialog-scxml -1 The copyright date in the notice file is 2007 instead of 2008 Aside from the copyright date, noted above, I only verified that notice.txt, manifest.mf and license.txt existed The artifact where built using JDK 1.5.0_13. Should they be built using 1.4? I used the staged artifacts for testing. In addition I have request the Myfaces folks run this version of shale when testing Tomahawk. Paul Spencer Greg Reddin wrote: A set of artifacts for Shale 1.0.5 is now ready. Please review the artifacts mentioned below and vote accordingly. Since this is my first time as release manager I wouldn't be surprised if something is missing or if I've included things that shouldn't be included, so I'd appreciate as thorough a review as you have time for. In particular I see a lot of Maven artifacts and zip files that were not included in previous releases so I wonder if they are meant to be release (the *test* artifacts for example). (1) The repository has been tagged here: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shale/framework/tags/SHALE_1_0_5/ (2) The Maven artifacts are staged here: http://people.apache.org/builds/shale/shale-1.0.5/m2-staging-repository/ org.apache.shale.extras:mailreader-jpa:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-application:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-apps-parent:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-blank:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-clay-usecases:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-clay:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-core:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-dialog-basic:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-dialog-scxml:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-dialog:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-mailreader-jpa:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-mailreader:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-parent:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-remoting:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-spring:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-sql-browser:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-test-core:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-test-dialog-basic:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-test-dialog-scxml:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-test-tiger:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-blank:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-test-view:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-tiger:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-usecases:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-validator:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-view:1.0.5 (3) The release artifacts are available here: http://people.apache.org/builds/shale/shale-1.0.5/dist/ mailreader-jpa-1.0.5.zip shale-blank-1.0.5.zip shale-clay-usecases-1.0.5.zip shale-framework-1.0.5.zip shale-mailreader-1.0.5.zip shale-mailreader-jpa-1.0.5.zip shale-sql-browser-1.0.5.zip shale-test-core-1.0.5.zip shale-test-dialog-basic-1.0.5.zip shale-test-dialog-scxml-1.0.5.zip shale-test-tiger-1.0.5.zip shale-test-view-1.0.5.zip shale-usecases-1.0.5.zip (4) The release notes are here, for ready reference: http://people.apache.org/~greddin/release-notes-1.0.5.html (5) Vote Please review these artifacts, signatures and checksums, and vote whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.5. --8 [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits [ ] +0 [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released A quality vote (per module, where necessary) will be held later on if this passes. Thank you!! Greg
Re: [VOTE] Release Shale 1.0.5
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -1 The copyright date in the notice file is 2007 instead of 2008 Aside from the copyright date, noted above, I only verified that notice.txt, manifest.mf and license.txt existed I'll have a look at that. The artifact where built using JDK 1.5.0_13. Should they be built using 1.4? Hmm, I didn't think about that. You're probably right, at least everything except the Tiger stuff. Rahul, did you use 1.4 to build the non-Tiger artifacts for 1.0.4? Thanks for checking. I figured there's little chance this first hack would be the final one :-) Greg
Re: [VOTE] Release Shale 1.0.5
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -1 The copyright date in the notice file is 2007 instead of 2008 Aside from the copyright date, noted above, I only verified that notice.txt, manifest.mf and license.txt existed Probably needs to be fixed, though I could argue that If there haven't been any significant code changes this year, then 2007 may be correct. The copyright date starts when something is created, and I'm not sure packaging existing stuff==creation. I wouldn't stop the release because of this if it's the only problem. The artifact where built using JDK 1.5.0_13. Should they be built using 1.4? I trust the 1.5 compiler to properly create 1.4 jars, assuming we have the compiler plugin configured correctly to target 1.4. Otherwise, since the tiger module _must_ be built with 1.5, you'd have to release it separately. I don't recally having to do that, but it's been a long time. Thanks for looking it over! -- Wendy
[VOTE] Release Shale 1.0.5
A set of artifacts for Shale 1.0.5 is now ready. Please review the artifacts mentioned below and vote accordingly. Since this is my first time as release manager I wouldn't be surprised if something is missing or if I've included things that shouldn't be included, so I'd appreciate as thorough a review as you have time for. In particular I see a lot of Maven artifacts and zip files that were not included in previous releases so I wonder if they are meant to be release (the *test* artifacts for example). (1) The repository has been tagged here: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shale/framework/tags/SHALE_1_0_5/ (2) The Maven artifacts are staged here: http://people.apache.org/builds/shale/shale-1.0.5/m2-staging-repository/ org.apache.shale.extras:mailreader-jpa:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-application:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-apps-parent:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-blank:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-clay-usecases:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-clay:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-core:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-dialog-basic:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-dialog-scxml:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-dialog:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-mailreader-jpa:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-mailreader:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-parent:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-remoting:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-spring:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-sql-browser:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-test-core:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-test-dialog-basic:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-test-dialog-scxml:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-test-tiger:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-blank:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-test-view:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-tiger:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-usecases:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-validator:1.0.5 org.apache.shale:shale-view:1.0.5 (3) The release artifacts are available here: http://people.apache.org/builds/shale/shale-1.0.5/dist/ mailreader-jpa-1.0.5.zip shale-blank-1.0.5.zip shale-clay-usecases-1.0.5.zip shale-framework-1.0.5.zip shale-mailreader-1.0.5.zip shale-mailreader-jpa-1.0.5.zip shale-sql-browser-1.0.5.zip shale-test-core-1.0.5.zip shale-test-dialog-basic-1.0.5.zip shale-test-dialog-scxml-1.0.5.zip shale-test-tiger-1.0.5.zip shale-test-view-1.0.5.zip shale-usecases-1.0.5.zip (4) The release notes are here, for ready reference: http://people.apache.org/~greddin/release-notes-1.0.5.html (5) Vote Please review these artifacts, signatures and checksums, and vote whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.5. --8 [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits [ ] +0 [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released A quality vote (per module, where necessary) will be held later on if this passes. Thank you!! Greg
