Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 16.11.05
+1 All is OK Jacques@LDLC MINGW64 /c/projectsASF/ofbiz/tools $ ./verify-ofbiz-release.sh apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip sha check of file: apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip Using sha file: apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip.sha512 apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip: 9D0C613C C3D88C37 A5A41F53 55F0D6A0 A465AB29 00987DF6 5070BBA6 4DCA43B4 1C8C44DB E7A1BBA5 4528AE17 04B45DE8 722F702E 9C13508A 0CD900A1 3F1D3B1B apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip: 9D0C613C C3D88C37 A5A41F53 55F0D6A0 A465AB29 00987DF6 5070BBA6 4DCA43B4 1C8C44DB E7A1BBA5 4528AE17 04B45DE8 722F702E 9C13508A 0CD900A1 3F1D3B1B sha checksum OK GPG verification output gpg: Signature made Mon Sep 17 11:02:30 2018 using RSA key ID 847AF9E0 gpg: Good signature from "Jacopo Cappellato (CODE SIGNING KEY) " gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 3545 C5E3 1CC2 D029 B2CC AD06 7A58 0908 847A F9E0 Tests pass Jacques Le 21/09/2018 à 16:26, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : This is the vote thread to release a new bug fix release for the release16.11 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 16.11.05" will supersede all the previous releases from the same branch. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ and are: * apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip.sha512: checksum file Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 16.11.05 [ -1] do not release This vote will be open for at least 5 days. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Kind Regards, Jacopo
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 16.11.05
Same tests, same results :) (besides GPG) I tested it a bit although, all fine for me so +1 Thanks Jacopo, Gil Le samedi 22 sept. 2018 à 14:27:54 (+0200), Michael Brohl a écrit : > +1 > > Everything is ok: > > $ ../ofbiz-tools/verify-ofbiz-release.sh apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip > sha check of file: apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip > Using sha file: apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip.sha512 > apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip: 9D0C613C C3D88C37 A5A41F53 55F0D6A0 A465AB29 > 00987DF6 5070BBA6 4DCA43B4 1C8C44DB E7A1BBA5 4528AE17 04B45DE8 722F702E > 9C13508A 0CD900A1 3F1D3B1B > apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip: 9D0C613C C3D88C37 A5A41F53 55F0D6A0 A465AB29 > 00987DF6 5070BBA6 4DCA43B4 1C8C44DB E7A1BBA5 4528AE17 04B45DE8 722F702E > 9C13508A 0CD900A1 3F1D3B1B > sha checksum OK > > GPG verification output > gpg: Signature made Mon Sep 17 11:02:30 2018 CEST using RSA key ID 847AF9E0 > gpg: Good signature from "Jacopo Cappellato (CODE SIGNING KEY) > " [ultimate] > > > $ ./gradlew loadDefault testIntegration > > ... > > BUILD SUCCESSFUL > > > Thanks Jacopo, > > Michael > > Am 21.09.18 um 16:26 schrieb Jacopo Cappellato: > > This is the vote thread to release a new bug fix release for the > > release16.11 branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 16.11.05" will > > supersede all the previous releases from the same branch. > > > > The release files can be downloaded from here: > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ > > > > and are: > > > > * apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip > > * KEYS: text file with keys > > * apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip.asc: the detached signature file > > * apache-ofbiz-16.11.05.zip.sha512: checksum file > > > > Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions > > on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). > > > > Vote: > > > > [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 16.11.05 > > [ -1] do not release > > > > This vote will be open for at least 5 days. > > > > For more details about this process please read > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Jacopo > > > >
Re: Relation type in SecurityGroupPermission entity
+1 Le 22/09/2018 à 14:15, Deepak Nigam a écrit : IMO, here the relation type should be 'one' here to maintain the referential integrity. WDYT?
