Monday, October 16, 2017, 4:23:45 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> Thank you very much for fixing the issues!
>
> I've just completed the steps to #10 [1] in both 2.3 and 2.3-gae branches.
>
> All the artifacts of both FreeMarker-2.3.27 and FreeMarker-GAE-2.3.27
> were uploaded here:
> -
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.27-incubating-preliminary/
>
> Also, maven staging repositories were closed here for both:
> - [FreeMarker-2.3.27]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefreemarker-1011/
> - [FreeMarker-GAE-2.3.27]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefreemarker-1012/
>
> PGP signatures were verified:
>
>      [echo] *** Signature verification: ***
>      [exec] gpg: Signature made Sun Oct 15 21:19:54 2017 EDT
>      [exec] gpg:                using RSA key
> 04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
>      [exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <woon...@apache.org>"
> [ultimate]
>     [input] Is the above signer the intended one for Apache releases? (y, n)
> y
>      // ...
>      [echo] *** Signature verification: ***
>      [exec] gpg: Signature made Sun Oct 15 21:20:05 2017 EDT
>      [exec] gpg:                using RSA key
> 04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
>      [exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <woon...@apache.org>"
> [ultimate]
>     [input] Is the above signer the intended one for Apache releases? (y, n)
> y
>      // ...
>
> Java API Compliance Checker results were positive, too, in both branches:
>
> Binary compatibility: 100%
> Source compatibility: 100%
> Total binary compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
> Total source compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
>
> Please take a review.

I will soon hopefully.

Please write down what do you think should be improved in the
documentation of the process, or in the process itself.

(BTW, version.properties changes can be merged from 2.3-gae as well;
it need not be done separately in 2.3.)

> I have one question regarding the step #11. What is 'the release
> documentation'?

It's just the documentation (the Manual) of the release. It's for
convenience for the voters, and that's where the link to the change
log points to in the vote mail.

> And I couldn't find a previous release documentation
> (e.g, http://freemarker.org/builds/2.3.26-voting/documentation/).

It was deleted after the voting.

> Could you please give a hint?
>
> Regards,
>
> Woonsan
>
> [1] http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
>> All right, I think we are ready again... the release process can be
>> started.
>>
>>
>> Tuesday, October 3, 2017, 5:01:22 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I was looking into the Java Beans indexed property related changes,
>>>> and have realized that it exposes long existing oversight, that didn't
>>>> affect us earlier because the indexed property reader has always
>>>> shadowed the normal reader method, which is in fact wrong in rare
>>>> cases.
>>>>
>>>> I will also look into
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-80 (reported today).
>>>> If we are lucky, it can be "fixed" without too much mess.
>>>>
>>>> I have also realized that some Java 9 testing will be needed. Just for
>>>> starters, our XML wrapper won't be able to use the internal Xerces of
>>>> Java, so one has to add a normal Xerces to the classpath or Jaxen to
>>>> use XPath... which should be documented. Also, java.bean.Introspector
>>>> behavioral changes (if there was any) like to break things (as they
>>>> did in Java 8). It would be unfortunate if that happens due to the
>>>> default method related workarounds added in 2.3.27.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Woonsan if it this additional iteration causes extra work... as
>>>> I seen you have recently upload another preliminary version.
>>>
>>> No worries at all! We'll start it again when ready. No big deal from my end.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Woonsan
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>  Daniel Dekany
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>  Daniel Dekany
>>
>

-- 
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany

Reply via email to