+1 ( FWIW)
Followed the validation steps, built on java 8
On May 19, 2020 at 15:50:37, Lukas Ott (ott.lukas...@gmail.com) wrote:
+1 (binding)
Download all staged artifacts - OK
Verify the signature is correct - OK
Verify the SHA512 hashes - OK
Verify the existence and content of LICENSE,
+1 (binding)
Download all staged artifacts - OK
Verify the signature is correct - OK
Verify the SHA512 hashes - OK
Verify the existence and content of LICENSE, NOTICE, README, RELEASE_NOTES
- OK
Search for SNAPSHOT references - OK
BUILD SUCCESS with: "mvn -P with-sandbox,with-dotnet install"
OS:
This is the discussion thread for the corresponding VOTE thread.
Please keep discussions in this thread to simplify the counting of votes.
If you have to vote -1 please mention a brief description on why and then take
the details to this thread.
Apache PLC4X 0.7.0 has been staged under [2] and it’s time to vote
on accepting it for release. All Maven artifacts are available under [1].
Voting will be open for 72hr.
A minimum of 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 than binding -1
are required to pass.
Release tag: release/0.7.0
Hash for
I am canceling the RC and fixing the stuff we found to make a perfect RC2 :)
Am 18.05.20, 18:15 schrieb "Otto Fowler" :
https://gist.github.com/ottobackwards/7f40865c5a1dad8b09c06c5215f40bd8
The error. Chris has reproduced.
java -version
java version “1.8.0_171"
Hi all,
I think I'll cancel this RC and cut a new one. Otto is actually right ... it
should work with Java 8 and it doesn't.
Also who am I to encourage people with non-binding votes telling them that
their votes count and then not to respect them (Ok ... technically we'd still
have enough)
So
I think you should cut another RC with the fix in it. With an Apache
project the code _IS_ the product as well. And this product (RC1) does not
work as documented.
RC’s are cheap, and we have scripts to help. What is the project based
reason to rush this?
On May 19, 2020 at 04:30:58,
Hi,
And to be on the safe-side, I would mention it in the Announce email ... and on
the download page.
I'll leave this discussion and the vote open till this afternoon so everyone
has the chance to express his/her feelings about this.
Chris
Am 19.05.20, 09:42 schrieb "Robinet, Etienne"
Hi,
I also agree with Chris
Etienne
Le mar. 19 mai 2020 à 08:40, Julian Feinauer
a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I would ship the RC as I fully agree with your argumentation.
> My opinion.
>
> Julian
>
> Am 19.05.20, 08:20 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" :
>
> Hi all,
>
> so I tracked down the problem
Hi,
I would ship the RC as I fully agree with your argumentation.
My opinion.
Julian
Am 19.05.20, 08:20 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" :
Hi all,
so I tracked down the problem Otto found.
It seems that the setting we are using in surefire and failsafe to allow
illegal access, is
BUILD-FAILURE: Job 'PLC4X/PLC4X/develop [develop] [884]':
Check console output at "https://builds.apache.org/job/PLC4X/job/PLC4X/job/develop/884/;>PLC4X/PLC4X/develop
[develop] [884]"
Hi all,
so I tracked down the problem Otto found.
It seems that the setting we are using in surefire and failsafe to allow
illegal access, is unknown to Java 8.
The strange thing is that we have this setting in all modules and only in the
mspec module it seems to be causing problems.
I moved
12 matches
Mail list logo
