Internal ________________________________ From: Andrew Wetmore <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 6:26 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale Compiler JBurg Types 1.1.1
do we 'ship' this, or is it an internal tool? Andrew Wetmore Technical Writer-Editor, Infra Assistant VP, Marketing and Publicity *Apache Software Foundation* <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 11:35 AM Yishay Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > Get them votes in > ________________________________ > From: sebb <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:57 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale Compiler JBurg Types > 1.1.1 > > On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 at 09:31, Yishay Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Adding to the earlier list of tooling improvements from RC2: > > > > 4) Vote-email templates (Jenkins jobs and Ant release scripts) now > include the release tag name, commit id, and GitHub tree URL for each repo > covered by the release. > > > > 5) The two utility approve scripts (ApproveJBurgTypes.xml and > ApproveBuildTools.xml) gained an optional verify-source-matches-tag target. > It is skipped by default; passing -Dcompiler.dir=<path-to-royale-compiler> > triggers a git archive of the tagged subdirectory and diffs the file list > against the extracted source ZIP. Reviewers who want extra provenance > assurance can opt in without affecting the default flow. > > This is not an optional step. > > The only way reviewers can establish whether a source file is allowed > to be shipped is to compare it against the source, because it is only > when content is added to the source repo that the license conditions > can be checked. > > If a reviewer has not checked that the files in the source bundle all > came from the source repository, in my view that does not count as a > full review, and should be noted in the comments. > > > ________________________________ > > From: Yishay Weiss <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 2:48 PM > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale Compiler JBurg > Types 1.1.1 > > > > A few small tooling issues surfaced while validating RC2. None affect > the RC itself — flagging here for transparency and follow-up on develop: > > > > 1. Consumer integration build missing from ApproveJBurgTypes.xml. > > The vote email asks voters to verify that other compiler POMs can > consume the new version, but the approval script only builds the utility > source package. I ran it manually with: > > > > cd royale-compiler > > mvn clean install -Dcompiler-jburg-types.version=1.1.1 > > > > I've added an optional verify-compiler-integration target on develop > that automates this when -Dcompiler.dir=<path> is provided. The next vote > email template will document it. > > > > 2. Vote summary referenced fields that don't apply. > > The approve target echoed "README is ok: ${readme.ok}" and > "RELEASE_NOTES is ok: ${releasenotes.ok}", which never get set because this > artifact ships neither file, so the reply had unresolved ${...} > placeholders. Cleaned up on develop. > > > > 3. "beta-quality" wording in vote templates. > > The vote-email templates in releasecandidate.xml / releasesteps.xml > still described releases as "beta-quality". Given we're moving to 1.0.0, I > removed that paragraph and softened the "not in PMC" phrasing on develop. > > > > None of the above blocks RC2 — the artifact itself is correct and > reproducible. > > > > Thanks, > > Yishay > > ________________________________ > > From: Apache Royale Release <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 11:26 AM > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale Compiler JBurg Types > 1.1.1 > > > > This is the discussion thread. > > > > Thanks, > > Yishay Weiss >
