Re: [VOTE] Release apache-river-2.1.1-incubating

[Craig L Russell]

Hi All,

On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote:

Is this course of action we want to pursue?

To be clear, the classes and jars both build fine by using the "all" and "jars" ant targets. The javadoc no longer builds for the end user because of the addition of the url pointing to the NOTICE file to allow for stand-alone javadoc distributions. The release zip files also cannot be generated through the use of the "build.release" target. While the javadoc should build for the end user, we never intended the end user to build release bundles. However, I think it looks bad to have a build target that fails for the end user--I agree that we should either fix it or remove it from the end user build scripts. By fixing the javadoc end-user build, the release build will be fixed as well. The fix will require me to add the NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source sub-directory in the source distribution. Note that the source distribution already contains the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the top level, but the doc and release builds are not aware of those top-level files. After committing the changes, I'll generate another release, another set of corresponding signature and check-sum files, upload the files to people-apache.org, some folks can do some sanity tests, and we can start another vote. Did I overlook any steps?

Does this course of action address Niclas's issue below?

On Dec 23, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Mark Brouwer wrote:

I think we shouldn't release a source distribution that doesn't actually

build. But before voting I would like to know whether we can fix this

to Incubator. I hope so because I don't want to spoil the party.

issue after we approved the release and before presenting a distribution

Craig

What the PMC votes on are the signed distribution artifacts so to change any bit requires another spin and another vote.

--
Mark



Frank

On Dec 22, 2007, at 12:46 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

On Saturday 22 December 2007 05:13, Jukka Zitting wrote:

As a minor remark, it would have been good to have the Incubator
disclaimer already in the top-level index.html files within the
release packages, but it's not that big a deal since the disclaimer
can still be found in the release notes.

you are dealing with.

I think Wicket[1] set some good examples;


   for me to approve this release.)


   releases.)


Otherwise, everything looks cool to me...


[1]

I think others in the Incubator PMC might be of a different opinion. Once the Tar ball is exploded, it is no longer obvious that it is Incubating project - Put DISCLAIMER file in the root of the two tar balls. (That is enough - Top level directory inside the tar ball to retain the fully versioned name, which includes the disclaimer. (Would like to see that in any future http://people.apache.org/dist/incubator/wicket/apache-wicket-1.3.0- incubating-beta1/dist/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-beta1.tar.gz

Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer

I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature