Hi David, it seems the async release that was cancelled has ended up in the aries/tags dir. Is this by mistake? I don't think it's an issue for now, but when you do the 1.0.0 release I think you'll need to remove that tag. I guess the 'cancelling a release' didn't undo the tag.
On 7 July 2015 at 11:31, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok - then let's cancel the vote. > > I should be able to restart it some time next week. > > On 7 July 2015 at 09:42, Timothy Ward <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> I think I’m right in saying that the Apache release process needs the source >> headers for approval. :( >> >> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#full-copy-for-each-source-file >> >> Regards, >> >> Tim >> >>> On 6 Jul 2015, at 08:27, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> I think that's pretty much always how it happens for something that is >>> in the process of being released. You can add the staging repository >>> to your maven repos and then you should be able to rebuild from >>> sources. Does someone have a better way of doing this? >>> >>> If people think I should re-spin the release because of the headers, >>> let me know. >>> >>> David >>> >>> On 4 July 2015 at 00:23, Timothy Ward <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> So the good news is that the release versions all pass the relevant >>>> compliance tests for their respective specifications, but I have noted two >>>> issues… >>>> >>>> I’m unable to build from source unless I re-version all of the bundles to >>>> 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT and do a mvn clean install first. If I fail to do this then >>>> the version checker fails the build. Once I have 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT versions >>>> in my local repository then everything works fine. >>>> The RAT check fails because the source files are missing Apache licence >>>> headers (my fault originally). This applies to the Promise API >>>> implementation and the Async API and Async Impl bundles. I’m not sure what >>>> the policy is for licence headers on the classes/interfaces in the >>>> org.osgi.xxx namespace. >>>> >>>> In summary, I’m +1 for the binaries, which work and contain all of the >>>> necessary licence info. I’m not sure if we need to respin for the >>>> source/build issues though. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>>> On 3 Jul 2015, at 16:42, Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> Sergey >>>>> On 03/07/15 12:55, [email protected] wrote: >>>>>> Here's my +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>>> On 3 July 2015 at 11:36, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm calling a vote on the first release of the Aries Asynchronous OSGi >>>>>>> Services implementation. This implements the OSGi Asynchronous >>>>>>> Services specification (chapter 138) and the OSGi Promises >>>>>>> specification (chapter 705) of the upcoming OSGi Enterprise R6 >>>>>>> specifications, which are available as proposed final draft [1]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Staging repository: >>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-1031 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For details on getting started see >>>>>>> http://aries.apache.org/modules/async-svcs.html >>>>>>> Kudos to Tim Ward for providing this implementation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please vote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 Approve the release >>>>>>> -1 Do not approve the release (please explain why) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Bosschaert >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/Drafts >>>>> >>>> >>
