I noticed that I was not running the absolute last version. Will upgrade to
2.2.1...

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Richard S. Hall <[email protected]>wrote:

> On 10/1/09 11:16, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
>
>> Used version 2.2.0 on Mac (OSX 10.6).
>>
>>
>
> Well, you can always try to update to 2.2.1...
>
>  On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Karl Pauls<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> what version of maven did you use?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Richard S. Hall<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 9/30/09 23:31, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I will check out the MD5 and SHA1 digests.
>>>>> Also
>>>>> will fix the issues that you are listing here. Was not sure how to do
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> NOTICE file so it was just a copy from something else :-) Do it need to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> be
>>>
>>>
>>>> a
>>>>> 2.0.1 release? Could I just rollback the release by rolling back the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> pom's
>>>
>>>
>>>> and delete the tag?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> For me, personally, I don't care. However, officially, the issue is
>>>> since
>>>>
>>>>
>>> it
>>>
>>>
>>>> was a failed release, we shouldn't release it all, because some people
>>>>
>>>>
>>> might
>>>
>>>
>>>> have grabbed the last JARs and are treating them as the official release
>>>> knowingly or not. So, the only way to prevent that is to not have that
>>>> release version at all, which means we do 2.0.1 instead.
>>>>
>>>> As for why the digests failed in the first place, I don't really know. I
>>>> thought Maven just did this automatically. I am a release newbie myself,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> so
>>>
>>>
>>>> maybe someone else has some advice.
>>>>
>>>> ->  richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> BR,
>>>>> Sten Roger Sandvik
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Richard S.
>>>>> Hall<[email protected]>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are quite a few issues, but it is really not all that
>>>>>> bad...actually,
>>>>>> there is only one issue that is causing me to give a -1, which is the
>>>>>> fact
>>>>>> that the MD5 and SHA1 digests don't appear to match for me. Not sure
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> why
>>>
>>>
>>>> that would be the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are also a raft of other more minor issues that would not have
>>>>>> caused
>>>>>> a -1 necessarily, but now we can fix those too. They are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   * The dependencies on OSGi should be on the official JARs at the
>>>>>>     appropriate version level needed (i.e., lowest acceptable
>>>>>> version).
>>>>>>   * It appears that all NOTICE use the same name (Apache Felix HTTP
>>>>>>     Service), but it should be different for each subproject module.
>>>>>>     For example, the bridge module should be "Apache Felix HTTP
>>>>>>     Service Bridge".
>>>>>>   * NOTICE file for api says it includes OSGi code, but it doesn't.
>>>>>>     Should also include Apache under "uses".
>>>>>>   * NOTICE file for base says it includes OSGi code, but it doesn't.
>>>>>>     Should also include Apache under "uses".
>>>>>>   * NOTICE file for bridge should include Apache under "uses".
>>>>>>   * NOTICE file for bundle should include Apache under "uses".
>>>>>>   * NOTICE file for jetty should include Apache under "uses".
>>>>>>   * NOTICE file for proxy says it includes OSGi, but it only uses.
>>>>>>     Also should include Apache in "uses".
>>>>>>   * NOTICE for samples bridge WAR file is not in META-INF directory,
>>>>>>     neither are LICENSE files. Should verify dependencies listed in
>>>>>>     NOTICE file.
>>>>>>   * NOTICE for samples filter says it includes OSGi, but it only uses.
>>>>>>     Also should include Apache in "uses".
>>>>>>   * NOTICE for samples whiteboard says it includes OSGi, but it only
>>>>>>     uses. Also should include Apache in "uses".
>>>>>>   * NOTICE for whiteboard says it includes OSGi, but it only uses.
>>>>>>     Also should include Apache in "uses".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that if we have dependencies on Apache software, we still list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> them
>>>
>>>
>>>> in
>>>>>> the "uses" section of the NOTICE file...this is overly cautious, but
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> not
>>>
>>>
>>>> a
>>>>>> big deal if we already have to keep track of third-party dependencies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doing a release is difficult, so trying it as a newbie is to be
>>>>>> commended.
>>>>>> :-) At this point, we will need to scrap this release and do a 2.0.1
>>>>>> release
>>>>>> with fixes for all of the above. Still, the main issue was the
>>>>>> digests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but good work none the less. Let me know if you have any
>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ->   richard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/28/09 22:59, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have prepared a release candidate for the improved http service
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I
>>>
>>>
>>>> contributed earlier (FELIX-1456). It is versioned 2.0.0 since it's a
>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>> refactoring and includes much more functionality than the original
>>>>>>> http.jetty module. Docs will be available on wiki very soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is my first release ever so hopefully I have done all the things
>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We solved 7 issues in this release:
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX/fixforversion/12314224
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are 8 outstanding issues:
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX/component/12310340
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Staging repository:
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/felix-staging-007/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can use this UNIX script to download the release and verify the
>>>>>>> signatures:
>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/check_staged_release.sh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Usage:
>>>>>>> sh check_staged_release.sh 007 /tmp/felix-staging
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please vote to approve this release:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>> Sten Roger Sandvik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Karl Pauls
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to