Re: [ALL] Dist layout change to per version directories

That definitely seems easier. +1. Would that mess up any sort of sync jobs (maven and stuff)? On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 7:26 PM Gary Gregory wrote: > I am OK with anything that makes releasing easier. > > Gary > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 4:02 PM, sebb

Re: [VOTE] Commons-net 3.5 based on RC1

+1 MD5, SHA1, ASC OK. Reports OK. Builds OK from src zip with 'mvn clean site' using Java 8, 7, and 6 on Windows 7: Apache Maven 3.0.5 (r01de14724cdef164cd33c7c8c2fe155faf9602da; 2013-02-19 05:51:28-0800) Maven home: E:\Java\apache-maven-3.0.5 Java version: *1.8.0_77*, vendor: Oracle

Re: [ALL] Dist layout change to per version directories

I am OK with anything that makes releasing easier. Gary On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 4:02 PM, sebb wrote: > The dist layout currently splits archives into source/ and binaries/. > Where there are multiple active versions, these are all in the same > directory. > > IMO this layout

[ALL] Dist layout change to per version directories

The dist layout currently splits archives into source/ and binaries/. Where there are multiple active versions, these are all in the same directory. IMO this layout is not ideal any more. It is harder to tidy up old releases (files have to be individually deleted) It is harder to move files from

Re: [VOTE] Release Validator 1.5.1 based on RC1

On 15 April 2016 at 23:42, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:27 PM, sebb wrote: > >> On 15 April 2016 at 21:07, Gary Gregory wrote: >> > Long story short: -1 because checkstyle-suppressions.xml is missing from >> >

Re: [VOTE] Release Validator 1.5.1 based on RC1

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:27 PM, sebb wrote: > On 15 April 2016 at 21:07, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Long story short: -1 because checkstyle-suppressions.xml is missing from > > the src zip. > > > > Long story: > > > > Also, I cannot build with Java 6, see

[VOTE] Commons-net 3.5 based on RC1

It's about time to release the next version of NET. == NET 3.5 RC1 is available for review here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/net/ (revision 13271) binaries/commons-net-3.5-bin.tar.gz.sha1:798851e256b64d6d03739bc24418369de3f9da7d

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-io 2.5 based on RC4

I've now corrected the binaries. On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:19 PM, sebb wrote: > On 14 April 2016 at 16:41, Benson Margulies wrote: >> Commons-io 2.5 is offered for a release vote. >> >> Commons-io 2.5 RC4 materials are available for review here: >>

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On 15 April 2016 at 21:27, James Carman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 4:13 PM sebb wrote: > >> >> As already explained, this is not possible with Git. >> Infra have disabled updating of certain tags includig the ones used >> for releases. > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Validator 1.5.1 based on RC1

On 15 April 2016 at 21:07, Gary Gregory wrote: > Long story short: -1 because checkstyle-suppressions.xml is missing from > the src zip. > > Long story: > > Also, I cannot build with Java 6, see below. We should not that in a > BUILDING.txt file. I would be OK to make Java

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 4:13 PM sebb wrote: > > As already explained, this is not possible with Git. > Infra have disabled updating of certain tags includig the ones used > for releases. Sorry, didn't realize if this was something we imposed on ourselves and asked infra to do

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On 15 April 2016 at 21:08, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:52 PM, James Carman > wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:43 PM sebb wrote: >> >> > >> > "the regular process" is what is under discussion. >> > >>

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:52 PM, James Carman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:43 PM sebb wrote: > > > > > "the regular process" is what is under discussion. > > > > > I meant the regular process used by the maven release plugin. :) That's >

Re: [VOTE] Release Validator 1.5.1 based on RC1

Long story short: -1 because checkstyle-suppressions.xml is missing from the src zip. Long story: Also, I cannot build with Java 6, see below. We should not that in a BUILDING.txt file. I would be OK to make Java 7 the min after this release. MD5, SHA1, ASC OK. Clirr & RAT reports on Sebb's

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-io 2.5 based on RC4

I missed the binaries. I will upload them. On Apr 15, 2016 3:33 PM, "Oliver Heger" wrote: > Hi Benson, > > when checking the RC I get a pretty strange effect on downloading the > binaries from https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/io/binaries/: > > The

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:43 PM sebb wrote: > > "the regular process" is what is under discussion. > > I meant the regular process used by the maven release plugin. :) That's "regular" to me, because that's what I use all the time. I think we have an opportunity to

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-io 2.5 based on RC4

Hi Benson, when checking the RC I get a pretty strange effect on downloading the binaries from https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/io/binaries/: The browser shows me "dist - Revision 13260: /dev/commons/io/binaries". However, the downloaded artifacts are obviously the ones from the

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:43 AM, sebb wrote: > On 15 April 2016 at 17:59, James Carman > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:57 PM James Carman < > ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > > wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:53 PM sebb

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

You are correct but I don’t see that as a big deal. See http://wiki.apache.org/logging/Log4j2ReleaseGuide and http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/source-repository.html . The fact

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

Benson Margulies wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Ralph Goers > wrote: >> Actually Benson, you can specify the tag name to use when you run the >> release plugin. release:prepare has a tag parameter. > > Thank you for addressing the specifics. If the -D

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On 15 April 2016 at 17:59, James Carman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:57 PM James Carman > wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:53 PM sebb wrote: >> >>> That is effectively what the final release tag is. >>> We

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:57 PM James Carman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:53 PM sebb wrote: > >> That is effectively what the final release tag is. >> We vote on the RC tag, and create the release tag from the successful RC >> tag. >> >> >

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:53 PM sebb wrote: > That is effectively what the final release tag is. > We vote on the RC tag, and create the release tag from the successful RC > tag. > > Yep, we're not far off. What I'm proposing is that we try to use the Maven Release Plugin to

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On 15 April 2016 at 17:38, James Carman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM Benson Margulies > wrote: > >> >> The problem is that this PMC does not want a tag named after the real >> (not RC) version to come into existence until after the

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:38 PM James Carman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM Benson Margulies > wrote: > >> >> The problem is that this PMC does not want a tag named after the real >> (not RC) version to come into existence until

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM Benson Margulies wrote: > > The problem is that this PMC does not want a tag named after the real > (not RC) version to come into existence until after the vote passes. > > Well, that's the thing that is somewhat silly. The fact that

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On 15 April 2016 at 16:50, Benson Margulies wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, James Carman > wrote: >> What is with everyone's aversion to using the Maven Release Plugin? I >> realize that it may not do exactly what we need out of the

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Actually Benson, you can specify the tag name to use when you run the release > plugin. release:prepare has a tag parameter. Thank you for addressing the specifics. If the -D for that had been in the web page to

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

Actually Benson, you can specify the tag name to use when you run the release plugin. release:prepare has a tag parameter. Ralph > On Apr 15, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, James Carman >

[VOTE] Release Validator 1.5.1 based on RC1

It's probably about time to release the next version of VALIDATOR. There have been a few improvements and fixes since the last version. == Validator 1.5.1 RC1 is available for review here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/validator/ (revision 13252)

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, James Carman wrote: > What is with everyone's aversion to using the Maven Release Plugin? I > realize that it may not do exactly what we need out of the box, but it's a > very useful tool. At home, I push a button in my Jenkins setup

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

What is with everyone's aversion to using the Maven Release Plugin? I realize that it may not do exactly what we need out of the box, but it's a very useful tool. At home, I push a button in my Jenkins setup and it cuts a new release to the Nexus OSS staging repository awaiting me to finalize

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:29 AM, sebb wrote: > Thanks! > > It also occurs to me that having the RC tag in the POM is not > necessarily a problem. If you prefer to modify the doc to tell people how to use the plugin so that the net result is the RC tag in the POM, OK. That

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

Thanks! It also occurs to me that having the RC tag in the POM is not necessarily a problem. So long as the tag is retained after a successful vote, then does it matter whether the tag in the POM is IO-1.2.3-RC4 or IO-1.2.3 ? On 15 April 2016 at 16:02, Brent Worden

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

I probably won't be much help either as I have never used the plugin but, there is a tag option for the plugin that might help control the SCM tag that is used. Of all the options for the plugin listed on https://maven.apache.org/maven-release/maven-release-plugin/prepare-mojo.html, the tag*

Re: Is there an missing bit in the instructions for making a release?

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:33 PM, sebb wrote: > On 15 April 2016 at 02:19, Benson Margulies wrote: >> Sebb, >> >> I don't know why you think I could distinguish the following possible >> behaviors of prior RMs with a reasonable level of effort: > > As I

Early Access builds of JDK 9 b113 & JDK 9 with Project Jigsaw b113 (#4848) are available on java.net

Hi Benedikt, Early Access b113 for JDK 9 is available on java.net, summary of changes are listed here . Early Access b113 (#4664) for JDK 9 with Project Jigsaw is

Re: [CRYPTO] Git repository requested

I have added both of you to the commons-developers list. You should be able to configure the project as you see fit. Benedikt Chen, Haifeng schrieb am Fr., 15. Apr. 2016 um 03:32 Uhr: > Thanks Benedikt! > My JIRA username is: jerrychenhf > > Regards, > Haifeng > >