No problem, but how will it work on Studio when you will have 2.0.0 and
2.0.0.AMx ? (OTOH, you can still define the version specifically).
What about the future ? Will we keep the milstones and RCs ?
On 09/11/2019 20:07, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
Hi Emmanuel,
I think it's fine as is, let's
+1
Verified signatures and checksums
Built with OpenJDK 8 and 12
I expect issues using this version in Studio update site because 2.0.0
is smaller than 2.0.0.AMx, but lets fix this with a next 2.0.1 release
as I don't like those AM/RC/GA suffixes and rather like to continue with
semantic
+1, Java 11
Nice to have the release train started back up.
—
Shawn
> On Nov 7, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Radovan Semancik
> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> OpenJDK 11.0.4. Tested with AD and OpenDJ.
>
> --
> Radovan Semancik
> Software Architect
> evolveum.com
>
>
>
> On 11/6/19 3:09 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 6:08 PM Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
>
> The opened issues have not been fixed.
>
> We always proceeds like that : we close the release, and all the issues
> are then move to the next iteration.
>
OK, thanks for the explanation.
We don't. That means we haven't implemented
+1
OpenJDK 11.0.4. Tested with AD and OpenDJ.
--
Radovan Semancik
Software Architect
evolveum.com
On 11/6/19 3:09 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Hi all,
this is a vote for the release of Apache LDAP API 2.0.0
This is a GA, at least !
There are a couple important fixes :
o DIRMINA-342 -
+1, built using Java8 on OS X and verified SHA256 hash.
Thank you for taking care of this in the middle of a conference :).
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:09 PM Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a vote for the release of Apache LDAP API 2.0.0
>
> This is a GA, at least !
>
> There are a
+1
On 6/5/19 10:56 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a vote for the release of Apache LDAP API 2.0.0.AM4, the forth
> milestone toward a 2.0
>
> We wanted to cut a GA, but some urgent fixes were needed, coupled with
> some MINA release that also fixes serious issues. In any
+1
My tests with AD and OpenDJ are passing.
--
Radovan Semancik
Software Architect
evolveum.com
On 6/5/19 10:56 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Hi all,
this is a vote for the release of Apache LDAP API 2.0.0.AM4, the forth
milestone toward a 2.0
We wanted to cut a GA, but some urgent fixes
On 6/6/19 6:56 am, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Hi all,
this is a vote for the release of Apache LDAP API 2.0.0.AM4, the forth
milestone toward a 2.0
We wanted to cut a GA, but some urgent fixes were needed, coupled with
some MINA release that also fixes serious issues. In any case, this
+1.
Downloaded distros, built from source, checked the sha512 sigs.
—Shawn
> On Jun 6, 2019, at 7:16 AM, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
>
> +1.
>
> Colm.
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:56 PM Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a vote for the release of Apache LDAP API 2.0.0.AM4, the
+1.
Colm.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:56 PM Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a vote for the release of Apache LDAP API 2.0.0.AM4, the forth
> milestone toward a 2.0
>
> We wanted to cut a GA, but some urgent fixes were needed, coupled with
> some MINA release that also fixes serious
+1
Built from source
Verified checksums and signatures
Tested in Studio
Kind Regards,
Stefan
On 5/12/19 8:02 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this is a vote for the release of Apache LDAP API 2.0.0.AM3, the third
> milestone toward a 2.0
>
> It contains many fixes (37) and is needed
Ah right :-) OK not a big deal then, +1 from me on the release - tested
with Apache DS + Kerby.
Colm.
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:40 PM Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
>
> On 13/05/2019 14:08, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
> > It's not really a big deal if the year is out of date :-) My concern
> > is
On 13/05/2019 14:08, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
It's not really a big deal if the year is out of date :-) My concern
is more why a change I made on master a month ago doesn't appear in
the source distribution we're releasing now. Did you cut the tag off a
branch that didn't have the latest
It's not really a big deal if the year is out of date :-) My concern is
more why a change I made on master a month ago doesn't appear in the source
distribution we're releasing now. Did you cut the tag off a branch that
didn't have the latest master changes?
Colm.
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:57
On 13/05/2019 11:04, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
Hi Emmanuel,
The year in the NOTICE file in the source distribution
(https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/directory/api/2.0.0.AM3/apache-ldap-api-2.0.0.AM3-src.zip)
is 2018, but the year in the NOTICE in the tag is 2019
Hi Emmanuel,
The year in the NOTICE file in the source distribution (
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/directory/api/2.0.0.AM3/apache-ldap-api-2.0.0.AM3-src.zip)
is 2018, but the year in the NOTICE in the tag is 2019 (
https://github.com/apache/directory-ldap-api/blob/2.0.0.AM3/NOTICE)? How
Hi all,
I downloaded the
sha512 check: OK
verify build: mvn -V clean verify
result:
[*INFO*] *Reactor Summary for Apache Directory LDAP API 2.0.0.AM3:*
[*INFO*]
[*INFO*] Apache Directory LDAP API .. *SUCCESS* [
31.531 s]
[*INFO*] Apache Directory LDAP API I18n
+1, built from source, verified sha512 sigs.
—Shawn
> On May 12, 2019, at 1:02 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> this is a vote for the release of Apache LDAP API 2.0.0.AM3, the third
> milestone toward a 2.0
>
> It contains many fixes (37) and is needed to be able to release
19 matches
Mail list logo
