Hudson build is back to normal : Chemistry - SwingClient - install #96

See

Hudson build is back to normal : Chemistry - OpenCMIS - install #252

See

Hudson build is back to normal : Chemistry - OpenCMIS - javadoc #209

See

Re: 0.1.0-rc2 release code freeze

The release email has been sent out and the vote is on! You can safely commit on the 0.2.0-incubating development version in trunk now. Thanks, Gab On Sep 10, 2010, at 8:32 PM, Gabriele Columbro wrote: Hey guys, I'm working on the new release so, despite Maven ensures atomicity of my o

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Chemistry OpenCMIS version 0.1.0-incubating (RC2)

On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:09 PM, Gabriele Columbro wrote: Hi Chemists, happy to announce that for Chemistry OpenCMIS 0.1.0-incubating-RC2 is available and ready for your testing and voting. Please cast your votes! [] +1 Release this package as Apache Chemistry 0.1.0-incubating +1 ! I t

[VOTE] Release Apache Chemistry OpenCMIS version 0.1.0-incubating (RC2)

Hi Chemists, happy to announce that for Chemistry OpenCMIS 0.1.0-incubating-RC2 is available and ready for your testing and voting. You can find the main release candidate artifacts (for distribution at apache.org/dist) at: http://people.apache.org/~gabriele/chemistry/opencmis/0.1.0-incubati

[jira] Updated: (CMIS-224) Improve legal/standard aspects of the release process / packaging

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-224?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Gabriele Columbro updated CMIS-224: --- Fix Version/s: 0.1.0-incubating (was: 0.2.0-incubating) Updated to refle

0.1.0-rc2 release code freeze

Hey guys, I'm working on the new release so, despite Maven ensures atomicity of my operations :) , I'd like to ask to abstain from committing in the next hour or so. I'll keep you posted, ciao! Gab -- Gabriele Columbro Alfresco Software, Ltd. http://www.mindthegab.com http://twitter.com

[jira] Resolved: (CMIS-224) Improve legal/standard aspects of the release process / packaging

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-224?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Gabriele Columbro resolved CMIS-224. Resolution: Fixed Patches applied at r995902. So the final layout is (per package): - all d

Re: [jira] Updated: (CMIS-224) Improve legal/standard aspects of the release process / packaging

Thanks Jukka, will apply the patches and proceed with release. @all: the code freeze is likely to happen around 8.30PM CET (~45 mins from now), so I'd ask you to commit your pending stuff now if you'd like it in the release (if there's any). Ciao, Gab On Sep 10, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Jukka Zi

[jira] Updated: (CMIS-224) Improve legal/standard aspects of the release process / packaging

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-224?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Jukka Zitting updated CMIS-224: --- Attachment: chemistry-jar-resource-bundle.patch As discussed on chemistry-dev@, it's not a good idea to

[jira] Commented: (CMIS-250) Issue in Apache Felix OSGi with JAXBHelper

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-250?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12908046#action_12908046 ] Florian Müller commented on CMIS-250: - This doesn't seem to be a problem with the librari

Re: Validation of release packages

Hi, On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Gabriele Columbro wrote: > after reading thoroughly http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html I can say > that: > > - our DEPENDENCIES file already lists all dependencies per project/commodity > package with the appropriate license and project URL, as stated b

[jira] Updated: (CMIS-224) Improve legal/standard aspects of the release process / packaging

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-224?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Jukka Zitting updated CMIS-224: --- Attachment: OpenCMIS-README.patch It would be good to include a README file that contains some basic in

[jira] Created: (CMIS-250) Issue in Apache Felix OSGi with JAXBHelper

Issue in Apache Felix OSGi with JAXBHelper -- Key: CMIS-250 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-250 Project: Chemistry Issue Type: Bug Components: opencmis-client-bindings Aff

Re: Validation of release packages

You are right, we could (and probably should) be more intelligent in the high level client even though the binding doesn't support it. If the user has fetched the object and didn't exclude the cmis:contentStreamFileName property we already have the filename in memory. If the user filtered that

Re: Validation of release packages

Yes I meant that. Ok so don't hold the release then. But this model mismatch makes some of my high-level unit tests fail when run on the atompub bindings, whereas they pass with webservices and local bindings. I think PersistentDocumentImpl.getContentStream should probably return an intelligent co

Re: Validation of release packages

Hi Florent, You mean that the OpenCMIS client doesn't return a filename in the ContentStream object when using AtomPub? That is correct. There is no filename in that case. - Florian On 10/09/2010 14:34, Florent Guillaume wrote: Can you hold the code freeze until 4PM ? There's I think a bu

Re: Validation of release packages

Can you hold the code freeze until 4PM ? There's I think a bug in the AtomPub bindings that I'd like to fix or make sure it's not a bug (getting the filename of a returned content stream). Florent On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Florent Guillaume wrote: > I really hate depending on anything SNA

Re: Validation of release packages

Hey Jukka, after reading thoroughly http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html I can say that: - our DEPENDENCIES file already lists all dependencies per project/ commodity package with the appropriate license and project URL, as stated by http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b

Re: Validation of release packages

Hey Jukka, On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: Hi, On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Florian Müller wrote: That is all really confusing. [1] states for Category B licences: [...] [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html That's an outdated draft document (see the status disc

Re: Validation of release packages

Hey Florent, thanks for the comment. Couple of clarifications though: On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Florent Guillaume wrote: I really hate depending on anything SNAPSHOT during a release. Although of course you could give it a date-based version, just creating a new maven plugin for that for the

Re: Validation of release packages

Hi, On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Florian Müller wrote: > That is all really confusing. [1] states for Category B licences: > [...] > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html That's an outdated draft document (see the status disclaimer at the beginning of the page). The official policy is

Re: Validation of release packages

I really hate depending on anything SNAPSHOT during a release. Although of course you could give it a date-based version, just creating a new maven plugin for that for the first OpenCMIS release seems overkill. Can't we do things partially by hand for now? Anyway, ok for the code freeze at 3PM CET

Re: Validation of release packages

Hi Jukka, That is all really confusing. [1] states for Category B licences: "Although the source must not be included in Apache products, the NOTICE file, which is required to be included in each ASF distribution, must point to the source form of the included binary (more on that in the forth

Re: Validation of release packages

Hi, On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Gabriele Columbro wrote: > quick update on this one: as Florian mentioned, working on the assumption > the Category B licenses require a pointer to source code in NOTICE (apart > from the mention in DEPENDENCIES), I have a working solution which allows > maven

Re: Validation of release packages

+1 Am 10.09.2010 um 13:15 schrieb Gabriele Columbro: > Hey guys, > quick update on this one: as Florian mentioned, working on the assumption the > Category B licenses require a pointer to source code in NOTICE (apart from > the mention in DEPENDENCIES), I have a working solution which allows

Re: Validation of release packages

+1 On 10/09/2010 12:15, Gabriele Columbro wrote: Hey guys, quick update on this one: as Florian mentioned, working on the assumption the Category B licenses require a pointer to source code in NOTICE (apart from the mention in DEPENDENCIES), I have a working solution which allows maven to produc

Re: Validation of release packages

Hey guys, quick update on this one: as Florian mentioned, working on the assumption the Category B licenses require a pointer to source code in NOTICE (apart from the mention in DEPENDENCIES), I have a working solution which allows maven to produce the notice file in the proper way. Basica