Hi, ARIES-556 was raised as a critical bug against 0.2 on Monday, and has been fixed in trunk. It would be good to get it into the 0.3 release rather than have a known critical bug in the JPA code. Is there a chance of respinning the JPA component for 0.3?
Regards, Tim ---------------------------------------- > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:37:42 +0000 > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Aries 0.3 release candidate 00 > To: [email protected] > > On 24 January 2011 18:34, zoe slattery wrote: > > On 24/01/2011 17:23, Jeremy Hughes wrote: > >> > >> So far, I've checked the source zips' .md5 .sha1 .asc .asc.md5 > >> .asc.sha1 files. I've run mvn -Prat on the unzipped source and get a > >> problem for each of the DEPENDENCIES files. I think we hit this in 0.2 > >> and 0.1 and decided to overlook it as they are generated files. > > > > Curious - I have just run 'mvn -Prat install' in the release candidate > > branch and I _don't_ get a problem with DEPENDENCIES files. > > I actually used mvn rat:check when I was checking the release artifacts - > > didn't see a problem with DEPENDENCIES there either. > > > > You are Maven 3? Could that be the difference, I'm running Maven 2.2.1. > > I seem to remember seeing this with Maven 2.2.1 from before. I think > what happens when doing the release is the DEPENDENCIES file is > created then the source zip is created and the DEPENDENCIES file is > included in that. Moving from Maven 2.2.1 to 3, I don't think RAT has > changed. > > I just tried it with Maven 2.2.1 and get the same result: > > ***************************************************** > Files with Apache License headers will be marked AL > Binary files (which do not require AL headers) will be marked B > Compressed archives will be marked A > Notices, licenses etc will be marked N > AL default-parent/java5-parent/pom.xml > AL default-parent/pom.xml > !????? DEPENDENCIES > N LICENSE > N NOTICE > AL pom.xml > > ***************************************************** > > I don't think it's worth respinning the release for this, as it is a > generated file and doesn't have any intellectual property in it. > > >> > >> I'm still to check the binaries though, but not today. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Jeremy > >> > >> On 24 January 2011 13:53, zoe slattery wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> I've staged a release candidate 00 for the 0.3 release. Please use this > >>> thread for any discussion. If you check the release please will you say > >>> exactly what you checked - even if it passes? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> Zoė > >>> > > > >
