2015-01-11 11:03 GMT+01:00 Luc Maisonobe <[email protected]>: > Le 10/01/2015 19:51, Benedikt Ritter a écrit : > > Hi all, > > > > we have fixed the issues which where found in RC2 (and a lot more ;-)) so > > I'd like to call a new vote to release Apache Commons Validator 1.4.1 > based > > on RC3. > > > > Changes between RC2 and RC3: > > - Removed dependency to methods > Java 1.4 > > - [VALIDATOR-342] URLValidator returns false for http://example.rocks > > - [VALIDATOR-235] UrlValidator rejects url with Unicode characters in > > domain label or TLD > > - [VALIDATOR-339] URLValidator fails validating domain names with a > > trailing period, which are valid. > > - [VALIDATOR-306] DomainValidator accepts labels longer than 63 chars and > > domain name lengths exceeding 255 chars > > - [VALIDATOR-349] TLD tables should be pre-sorted > > - [VALIDATOR-290] Create new url validation using rfc3986 and IDN - added > > new test > > - [VALIDATOR-350] Should "x.root" validate as a domain name? Removed > "root" > > from TLD list. Also "um" and "yu" as they are currently "Not assigned" > > - [VALIDATOR-308] Logical errors in util.Flags affecting check of > multiple > > flags as well as flag 64 > > - [VALIDATOR-344] AbstractCheckDigit class does not fully test invalid > > strings. Fix up the testCalculateInvalid() invalid method to allow for > > either invalid checksum or syntax (CheckDigitException) error when > testing > > the entries in the invalid array. > > - [VALIDATOR-297] Punycode url is not valid. Top-level domain regex > > matching was wrong; did not allow embedded "-" as per RFC2396 > > - [VALIDATOR-334] UrlValidator: isValidAuthority() returning true when > > supplied authority validator fails > > - [VALIDATOR-309] UrlValidator does not validate uppercase URL schemes > > - [VALIDATOR-343] Doc URL update for broken link > > > > Changes between RC1 and RC2: > > - [VALIDATOR-307] - isValid checks if the given address is only IPV4 > > address and not IPV6 > > - [VALIDATOR-347] - toLowerCase() method is Locale-sensitive and should > not > > be used > > - [VALIDATOR-348] - Update TLD list to latest version (Version > 2014123000) > > - [VALIDATOR-336] - CUSIPCheckDigit thinks invalid CUSIP is valid. > > - [VALIDATOR-345] - ISINCheckDigit fails to reject invalid (non-numeric) > > check digits > > - [VALIDATOR-346] - SedolCheckDigit fails to reject invalid (non-numeric) > > check digits > > - Removed STATUS.html > > - Added README.md to binary and source distribution > > - Fixed encoding of source files in build by setting commons.encoding > > property > > - Fixed JIRA report to contain the issues of the project > > - Reverted dependency to commons-beanutils to 1.8.3 since this is the > > latest JDK 1.4 compatible release > > - Added JDK requirements to release notes. > > > > Validator 1.4.1-RC2 is available for review here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/validator/ (svn > revision > > 7682) > > > > The tag is here: > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/validator/tags/VALIDATOR_1_4_1_RC3/ > > (svn > > revision 1650789) > > > > Maven artifacts are here: > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1076/commons-validator/commons-validator/1.4.1/ > > > > Details of changes since 1.4 are in the release notes: > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/validator/RELEASE-NOTES.txt > > > > I have tested this with JDK 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8 using maven 3.2.5. > > > > Site (some links my be broken but will be fixed when the site is > deployed): > > http://people.apache.org/~britter/validator-1.4.1-RC3/ > > > > Clirr Report: > > > http://people.apache.org/~britter/validator-1.4.1-RC3/clirr-report.html > > > > RAT Report: > > http://people.apache.org/~britter/validator-1.4.1-RC3/rat-report.html > > > > Keys: > > https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS > > > > Please review this release candidate and vote. > > This vote will close no sooner than 72 hours from now, i.e. after > > 2015/01/04 19:00CET > > Since the vote started on January 10th, I suppose the real closing date > should be January 13th, not January 4th ;-) > > > > > [ ] +1 Release these artifacts > > [X] +0 OK, but... > > One problem is that the MANIFEST.MF file in the binaries jar > does not contain the build number. The corresponding entry reads: > > Implementation-Build: UNKNOWN_BRANCH@r??????; 2015-01-10 18:25:42+0000 > > It has probably been built from a non-svn checkout. > > As binaries are only a convenience, I don't think it's a blocker, > hence my +0. >
Hello Luc, I usually do a svn export of the tag before I create the artifacts. This seems to be the wrong procedure, so all releases I've created will have this problem :-( I'll do a svn co from now on. Thanks! Benedikt > > Luc > > > [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix... > > [ ] -1 I oppose this release because... > > > > I'd like to add that all thanks for this RC goes to sebb, who has > invested > > a lot of time to get this right. > > Thanks! > > > > Benedikt > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- http://people.apache.org/~britter/ http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter http://github.com/britter
