On Dec 24, 2007 4:47 PM, Chris Mattmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Niall, > > Thanks for the comments. My replies embedded below: > > > I can't see any issues with the release candidate but it would be nice > > for windoze users to include "zip" distro - also wouldn't it be nice > > for users to also release binary distros and not just the source > > distro? > > We (Jukka, Bertrand, Sami) discussed this earlier, and the consensus was to > make the tika jar file available from a maven repository somewhere. So, > that's what we're going with for 0.1.
OK great - as thats a release artifact as well IMO would be good to post that for the review/vote as well. > > 1) CHANGES.txt says "Unreleased changes (0.1-dev)" rather than > > indicating the 0.1-Incubating release > > This will be updated before I officially tag the branch, and make the > release. > > > 2) Usual convention I've seen on other projects is to use "tags" for > > releases and "branches" for alternative development branches: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tika/branches/ > > I've seen both conventions on projects for this. In my mind, it makes sense > to first branch, then if there are any issues during rc evaluation, and > patches need to be applied, the patches can be first applied to the branch. > Once an rc is accepted by the committers, then, the branch is tagged as "the > release". Then, if there are any more changes to a particular product line, > the same cycle ensues (update branch, come to agreement, tag branch as > "release"). > > FYI, Apache Nutch uses the "tag first" convention, but during the 0.9 > release (that I made), we discussed doing the "branch first" convention, and > why it makes sense (similar reasons to above), and I'm really in favor of > it. >From the releases I've seen or done then this would mean applying changes in two places - the branch and the trunk and would just be unecessary/extra work. I could see the value of creating a branch if a serious bug turned up after the release and the project wanted to just put out e.g. Tika 0.1.1 to fix that - but that branch could be created from the release tag when that occurs. > > 3) The IPMC will probably ask to see a RAT report - the site build > > includes one (and it looks fine) - so might be a good idea to either > > stage the site built from that tag or just produce a text one manually > > - I have produced a text one from the 0.1-incubating source distro > > here if that makes life easier: > > http://people.apache.org/~niallp/Tika-0.1/ > > Looks good. Could you please include the commands that you used to generate > the RAT report? I will include it in the guide that I am making describing > how to make a Tika release. On windoze.. java -cp c:/j/rat-0.5.1/rat-lib-all-0.5.1.jar rat.Report apache-tika-0.1-incubating > apache-tika-0.1-incubating.txt RAT availbale here (although soon to be entering Apache Incubator) http://code.google.com/p/arat/ Niall > Thanks, > Chris > > > > > > Niall > > > > On Dec 24, 2007 4:19 AM, Chris Mattmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Folks, > >> > >> I have posted a candidate for the Apache Tika 0.1-incubating release at > >> > >> http://people.apache.org/~mattmann/apache-tika-0.1-incubating/rc1/ > >> > >> See the included CHANGES.txt file for details on release contents and > >> latest > >> changes. The release was made from the 0.1-incubating trunk. > >> > >> Please vote on releasing these packages as Apache Tika 0.1-incubating. The > >> vote is open for the next 72 hours. Only votes from Tika committers are > >> binding, but everyone is welcome to check the release candidate and voice > >> their approval or disapproval. The vote passes if at least three binding > >> +1 > >> votes are cast. > >> > >> [ ] +1 Release the packages as Apache Tika 0.1-incubating > >> [ ] -1 Do not release the packages because... > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Chris > > > ______________________________________________ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cognizant Development Engineer > Early Detection Research Network Project > _________________________________________________ > Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA > Office: 171-266B Mailstop: 171-246 > _______________________________________________________ > > Disclaimer: The opinions presented within are my own and do not reflect > those of either NASA, JPL, or the California Institute of Technology. > > >
