OK, ot looks good to me. We can continue!
Monday, October 16, 2017, 8:11:22 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote: > 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
