Hi all, I have to check if we can extend the duration of the vote (and if possible I'll write here today).
Let's update. Sandro Il giorno 05/giu/2013 00:25, "Roger L. Whitcomb" <roger.whitc...@actian.com> ha scritto: > I think Sandro created the release on Linux, so likely the line endings > were \n and not \r\n as they would be in Windows. Also the .jar files > won't be exactly the same due to timestamps, and probably subtle JDK > differences (such as exact minor release number, etc.). I used WinMerge > on Windows with settings to ignore line-ending diffs and "diff -r" on > OSX to do my comparisons, which seems to verify that the line endings in > the sources files are \n only. > > Let's see what Sandro says. You are essentially (without saying so > exactly) voting +0 on the release, awaiting further testing. So, I'm > fine with extending the vote for another 24 hours in order to complete > your testing. > > Thanks for your efforts so far, > ~Roger > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Bartlett [mailto:cbartlet...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:01 PM > To: Pivot Dev > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Pivot 2.0.3 - Round 3 > > Unfortunately I have not yet finished testing. > > When attempting to recreate the release candidate from SVN source and > then compare the resulting files I am seeing discrepancies which *seem* > to just be down to line endings however I have not yet confirmed this or > had time to correct my environment (if that is where the difference > originates from). > > What is the next step? Can we simply extend the vote by 24 hours or is > a new vote required? > > Chris > > On 3 June 2013 22:34, Roger L. Whitcomb <roger.whitc...@actian.com> > wrote: > > > My vote is: > > > > [+1] Publish > > > > Tests done: > > * System is OSX 10.6.8, JDK 1.6.0_45 (x86_64) > > * Download all .zip and .tar.gz files, check MD5 checksums. > > * Compare contents of .zip files with contents of .tar.gz files and > > verified they are identical. > > * Run "clean", "package", "doc", "test" targets on both source > > directories. > > * Tested .jar files built from source with our application. > > * Tested binary .jar files with our application. > > * Browsed Javadoc in all four locations (generated from source > > directories and from shipped binary files). > > * Browsed text RAT reports. > > * Compared 2.0.3 tag with current branches/2.0.x code and found only > > expected differences. > > * Compare both source downloads with contents of tags/2.0.3 and > > verified they are identical. > > > > Also ran a number of other tests on Windows of these same files for > > previous vote and found no problems. > > > > ~Roger Whitcomb > > >
