Thanks Greg, much appreciated. Sent from my Samsung device. Include original message ---- Original message ---- From: tras...@stratuscom.com Sent: 10/01/2016 08:57:18 am To: Peter <dev@river.apache.org>; dev@river.apache.org Subject: Re: River - 3.0.0 Release candidate
Happy to help, but I'll be traveling for a few days, so it won't be til the 15th or so before I can have a look at it. If nobody else gets to it first I'll have a go. Greg Trasuk. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. Original Message From: Peter Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 5:43 PM To: dev@river.apache.org Reply To: dev@river.apache.org Subject: Re: River - 3.0.0 Release candidate Greg, If you want to remedy these issues for me, I can regenerate the release artifacts. Sent from my Samsung device. Include original message ---- Original message ---- From: Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com> Sent: 10/01/2016 06:16:09 am To: dev@river.apache.org Subject: Re: River - 3.0.0 Release candidate - I also though we had agreed to take the ‘examples’ folder out of the JTSK. Cheers, Greg > On Jan 9, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com> wrote: > > > I’ve only looked at the ‘apache-river-3.0.0.tar.gz’ archive. A few issues… > > - we can’t have jar files in the source distribution. Which means we have a >problem with ‘dep-libs’. You could either setup a separate download for >developers to retrieve, or just give a list of the libraries that are needed. >What I’d recommend is to modify the build script to use Apache Ivy to go get >the requisite libraries at build time. See the 2.2 branch for an example on >how to do this. > - as above for ‘test/lib’ > - The ‘tar_release_test’ folder should be removed > - There is a “LICENSE” and a “LICENSE.txt” file in the root of the >distribution. They’re identical - delete LICENSE.txt > - Same with NOTICE and NOTICE.txt. > - Both of the above will need to be reviewed when the jar files have been >sorted out. Also, we may need a different LICENSE and NOTICE file for the >binary convenience artifacts. > - ‘doap-river.rdf’ is not really specific to the 3.0.0 release, so it >shouldn’t be in the release artifact > - ‘build.properties’ doesn’t have a license header. > - I’d remove the ‘nbproject’ folder myself - the project shouldn’t be >dependent on the IDE. Although we might want to include instructions on how >to open it in an IDE. > - I could be wrong on this, but I think the current recommendation is to not >include a “KEYS” file, but for the release manager to register his/her keys on >‘id.apache.org’. > > Cheers, > > Greg Trasuk > >> On Jan 8, 2016, at 6:56 AM, Peter Firmstone <peter.firmst...@zeus.net.au> >>wrote: >> >> The Apache River 3.0.0 Release candidate is available here: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~peter_firmstone/ >> >> Voting on this release will commence in 4 weeks, to allow time for people to >>check they can reproduce these artifacts and test their code and report back >>with any issues. >> >> The code is currently in trunk, this will be branched after the 4 week >>review period and Voting passes. >> >> See also http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html >> >> Regards, >> >> Peter. >
