[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Jena 3.12.0 RC 1 (GeoSPARQL)
The vote passes with +1 from Andy, Adam and Bruno Thanks all, Andy On 28/05/2019 09:48, Andy Seaborne wrote: Hi, Here is a vote on a release of Apache Jena 3.12.0. This is the first proposed release candidate. The deadline for the vote is Friday, 31th May, 2019 at 20:00 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Apache Jena 3.12.0 RC 1 (GeoSPARQL)
[x] +1 Approve the release * only minor note is the source contains pom.xml.versionsBackup, which I believe is not necessary, though harmless? Build from commit hash passing on Apache Maven 3.5.4 (1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe; 2018-06-18T06:33:14+12:00) Maven home: /opt/apache-maven-3.5.4 Java version: 1.8.0_212, vendor: Oracle Corporation, runtime: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre Default locale: en_NZ, platform encoding: UTF-8 OS name: "linux", version: "4.15.0-50-generic", arch: "amd64", family: "unix" with `mvn clean install -Pdev`. + are the GPG signatures fine? Looks good to me (checked dist area) + are the checksums correct? Looks good to me (checked dist area) + is there a source archive? Dist area contains source. Checked a few artefacts on Maven staging. All good. + can the source archive really be built? (NB This requires a "mvn install" first time) Tested dist source, `mvn clean install -Pdev`. + is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact (both source and binary artifacts)? Checked a few in the source from commit hash, and from dist area. + does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions? I think so (was lurking in some recent discussion, found nothing that I could tell was missing) + have any licenses of dependencies changed due to upgrades? if so have LICENSE and NOTICE been upgraded appropriately? Not sure, sorry. Missed recent conversation about licenses regarding changes in this release. + does the tag/commit in the SCM contain reproducible sources? Yup! Cheers Bruno On Tuesday, 28 May 2019, 8:48:41 pm NZST, Andy Seaborne wrote: Hi, Here is a vote on a release of Apache Jena 3.12.0. This is the first proposed release candidate. The deadline for the vote is Friday, 31th May, 2019 at 20:00 UTC Release changes: The main feature of this release is the new GeoSPARQL and Fuseki GeoSPARQL modules. The new NOTICE file for the combined binary for fuseki+geosparql is: https://github.com/apache/jena/blob/d4beb7d99d48e98c981d434c980f83784b519ebd/jena-fuseki2/jena-fuseki-geosparql/src/main/resources/META-INF/NOTICE Other JIRA: https://s.apache.org/jena-3.12.0-jira == Updates JENA-1711 : Upgrade Jackson dependency to 2.9.9 (CVE-2019-12086) Release Vote Everyone, not just committers, is invited to test and vote. Please download and test the proposed release. Staging repository: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejena-1031 Proposed dist/ area: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/jena/ Keys: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jena/dist/KEYS Git commit (browser URL): https://github.com/apache/jena/commit/d4beb7d9 Git Commit Hash: d4beb7d99d48e98c981d434c980f83784b519ebd Git Commit Tag: jena-3.12.0 Please vote to approve this release: [ ] +1 Approve the release [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Don't release, because ... This vote will be open until at least Friday, 31th May, 2019 at 20:00 UTC If you expect to check the release but the time limit does not work for you, please email within the schedule above with an expected time and we can extend the vote period. Thanks, Andy Checking needed: + are the GPG signatures fine? + are the checksums correct? + is there a source archive? + can the source archive really be built? (NB This requires a "mvn install" first time) + is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact (both source and binary artifacts)? + does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions? + have any licenses of dependencies changed due to upgrades? if so have LICENSE and NOTICE been upgraded appropriately? + does the tag/commit in the SCM contain reproducible sources?
Re: [VOTE] Apache Jena 3.12.0 RC 1 (GeoSPARQL)
OK sounds good, my next stats package will be released as a property functions package I believe and not as part of ARQ. I will make changes to the logging configuration tomorrow. On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:33 PM ajs6f wrote: > I'm afraid not. Honestly, I didn't realize that Andy was going to start > releasing so quickly. Time flies! > > I've got a last request for you to stop using System.out.println to log, > but other than that it looks like you've responded to all the comments, so > thank you! We should be able to merge very soon. > > ajs6f > > > > On May 28, 2019, at 8:00 AM, Marco Neumann > wrote: > > > > median function not going to be in this release? > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:25 AM Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >>> Please vote to approve this release: > >>> > >>> [ ] +1 Approve the release > >>> [ ] 0 Don't care > >>> [ ] -1 Don't release, because ... > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > > > --- > > Marco Neumann > > KONA > > -- --- Marco Neumann KONA
Re: [VOTE] Apache Jena 3.12.0 RC 1 (GeoSPARQL)
I'm afraid not. Honestly, I didn't realize that Andy was going to start releasing so quickly. Time flies! I've got a last request for you to stop using System.out.println to log, but other than that it looks like you've responded to all the comments, so thank you! We should be able to merge very soon. ajs6f > On May 28, 2019, at 8:00 AM, Marco Neumann wrote: > > median function not going to be in this release? > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:25 AM Andy Seaborne wrote: > >> +1 >> >>> Please vote to approve this release: >>> >>> [ ] +1 Approve the release >>> [ ] 0 Don't care >>> [ ] -1 Don't release, because ... >> > > > -- > > > --- > Marco Neumann > KONA
Re: [VOTE] Apache Jena 3.12.0 RC 1 (GeoSPARQL)
median function not going to be in this release? On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:25 AM Andy Seaborne wrote: > +1 > > > Please vote to approve this release: > > > > [ ] +1 Approve the release > > [ ] 0 Don't care > > [ ] -1 Don't release, because ... > -- --- Marco Neumann KONA
Re: [VOTE] Apache Jena 3.12.0 RC 1 (GeoSPARQL)
+1 Please vote to approve this release: [ ] +1 Approve the release [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Don't release, because ...
[VOTE] Apache Jena 3.12.0 RC 1 (GeoSPARQL)
Hi, Here is a vote on a release of Apache Jena 3.12.0. This is the first proposed release candidate. The deadline for the vote is Friday, 31th May, 2019 at 20:00 UTC Release changes: The main feature of this release is the new GeoSPARQL and Fuseki GeoSPARQL modules. The new NOTICE file for the combined binary for fuseki+geosparql is: https://github.com/apache/jena/blob/d4beb7d99d48e98c981d434c980f83784b519ebd/jena-fuseki2/jena-fuseki-geosparql/src/main/resources/META-INF/NOTICE Other JIRA: https://s.apache.org/jena-3.12.0-jira == Updates JENA-1711 : Upgrade Jackson dependency to 2.9.9 (CVE-2019-12086) Release Vote Everyone, not just committers, is invited to test and vote. Please download and test the proposed release. Staging repository: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejena-1031 Proposed dist/ area: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/jena/ Keys: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jena/dist/KEYS Git commit (browser URL): https://github.com/apache/jena/commit/d4beb7d9 Git Commit Hash: d4beb7d99d48e98c981d434c980f83784b519ebd Git Commit Tag: jena-3.12.0 Please vote to approve this release: [ ] +1 Approve the release [ ] 0 Don't care [ ] -1 Don't release, because ... This vote will be open until at least Friday, 31th May, 2019 at 20:00 UTC If you expect to check the release but the time limit does not work for you, please email within the schedule above with an expected time and we can extend the vote period. Thanks, Andy Checking needed: + are the GPG signatures fine? + are the checksums correct? + is there a source archive? + can the source archive really be built? (NB This requires a "mvn install" first time) + is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact (both source and binary artifacts)? + does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions? + have any licenses of dependencies changed due to upgrades? if so have LICENSE and NOTICE been upgraded appropriately? + does the tag/commit in the SCM contain reproducible sources?
