Rajini, if you could help migrate us to the maven-bundle-plugin that would be really helpful, thanks!
Kelvin. On 25/02/2008, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Amita, > > > On 2/25/08, Amita Vadhavkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Below are the things pending before I can form RC2, please see if > anybody > > have any inputs. > > All others comments are acted on. > > > > Pending: > > > > 1) The src distro includes the impl/.felix folder - is that really > > required > > or > > could it be excluded? > > > > .felix folder should be excluded. It is created while running OSGi tests, > and it should not be in the source repository. > > > 2) The sdo-api pom.xml is using the 0.8.0-SNAPSHOT version of the felix > > maven-osgi-plugin, could that use a non-snapshot release? > > > > maven-osgi-plugin has been replaced by maven-bundle-plugin, which has a > non-snapshot version - I think the latest version is 1.2.1. Moving to > maven-bundle-plugin will require changes to the plugin configuration > entries > in pom.xml. I can provide the changes if you want to do this migration for > this release. > > > > > 3) Mention of backport util source location in bin/Notice file - > > confirmation > > > > Regards, > > Amita > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:18 PM, kelvin goodson < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > On 22/02/2008, Amita Vadhavkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for all the review comments - working on those. I am just > > > checking > > > > a > > > > few things below where I am not clear - > > > > > > > > > > > > NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed > > > > > > > > ----Assuming http://backport-jsr166.sourceforge.net/, please confirm > > > > > > > > > I'm 95% sure you are right, but opening up the jar to look for info > on > > > origin doesn't prove fruitful. I also downloaded the javadoc from > > > > > > > > > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/backport-util-concurrent/backport-util-concurrent/3.1/to > > > see if that helped, but no. > > > > > > Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have the > felix > > > > librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the samples > > > javadoc > > > > > > > > -----?Are the samples using these? or it is because the libs used by > > the > > > > samples > > > > use these libs? If this is required, it will go in the same place > in > > > > index.html where > > > > we are listing all the other dependencies, right? > > > > > > > > > I wrote this in the context of a failing runsamples script, but > having > > > got > > > it working it's clear that the samples are not dependent on having > these > > > new > > > libraries on the classpath. So I don't believe any changes is needed > to > > > the > > > javadoc for this. > > > > > > Am still not able to remove the target dir appearing in the sample > > project > > > > of > > > > bin distribution. Trying... > > > > > > > > > good luck, I can't help right now, but might get some time later if > > you > > > haven't already solved it > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Amita > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:44 PM, kelvin goodson < > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > the problems with the runsamples.bat file are that 1) it is > missing > > > the > > > > > tuscany prefix from the sdo api jar and 2) the woodstox library is > > at > > > > > > > > > 3.2.0rather than > > > > > > > > > 3.2.1 > > > > > > > > > > Also I can see that the runsamples.sh file is at the > > > 1.0-incubatinglevel > > > > > and has the woodstox version issue. > > > > > > > > > > Kelvin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 21/02/2008, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Amita, thanks for this, here are some comments .... > > > > > > > > > > > > Binary zip file on Windows > > > > > > ========================== > > > > > > > > > > > > MD5 is fine > > > > > > I couldn't find your public pgp signing key -- it needs adding > to > > > the > > > > > KEYS > > > > > > file at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/KEYS > > > > > > and registering on a key server (you may have done that, I > > haven't > > > > > spent > > > > > > a lot of time remembering how to search for it yet) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LICENSE is correct for all 3rd party jars in the lib file and > jar > > > > > versions > > > > > > are correct > > > > > > NOTICE file -- TO CHECK = where is backport developed > > > > > > README seems fine > > > > > > > > > > > > Samples javadoc -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Potential ISSUE - I'm not sure if the samples should now have > the > > > > felix > > > > > > librairs and backport libray listed as dependencies in the > samples > > > > > javadoc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ISSUE running runsamples.bat in the samples dir results in ... > > > > > > > > > > > > SDO Sample Programs. Running with BINARY_BASE set to .. > > > > > > If this script fails with ClassDefNotFound errors you probably > > need > > > to > > > > > > edit the BINARY_BASE variable in the script to point to the > > location > > > > > > where you unpacked the Tuscany SDO binary distribution > > > > > > Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: > > > > > > commonj/sdo/DataObject > > > > > > at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method) > > > > > > at java.lang.Class.forName(Unknown Source) > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure.class$( > > > > > > SampleInfrastructure.java:58) > > > > > > at > > > > org.apache.tuscany.samples.sdo.internal.SampleInfrastructure > > > > > > .<clinit>(SampleInfrastructure.java:57) > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess the bat and sh scrips need the classpath changing to > > reflect > > > > the > > > > > > updated jar versions > > > > > > > > > > > > C:\Release\sdo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.1-inc\RC1\bin\apache-tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\tuscany-sdo-1.1-incubating\samples > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ISSUE - there is an extra "target" directory in the samples > > > directory > > > > of > > > > > > the binary distribution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release notes ... > > > > > > ISSUE -- following is not so .... > > > > > > "Apache Tuscany's SDO Java Release 1.1-incubating is the first > > such > > > > > > release > > > > > > with full coverage of the SDO 2.1 specification. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to adding the few remaining SDO 2.1 features not > > > included > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > 1.0-incubating release and fixing a number of bugs (see below > for > > > > > detail) > > > > > > there are a number of new features relating to XML > serialization, > > > and > > > > > new > > > > > > support for handling dynamic derivation from static classes." > > > > > > > > > > > > and there's more in that file that is specific to the 1.0release > > > > below > > > > > > that. I think we need > > > > > > to compose some words specific to the nature of this release. > > > > > > > > > > > > ISSUE -- The JIRA list looks OK but I think it contains CTS > JIRAs > > > juch > > > > > as > > > > > > 829, we need to check it against > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=12310210&status=5&fixfor=12312995&resolution=1&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=components&sorter/order=ASC&sorter/field=updated&sorter/order=DESC > > > > > > > > > > > > Source ZIP File on Windows > > > > > > ========================== > > > > > > > > > > > > md5 is fine > > > > > > pgp .asc file to be verified > > > > > > > > > > > > ISSUE - The BUILDING file needs updating with respect to > building > > > with > > > > > > Java 1.4.2 -- instead of asking the builder to manually remove > > files > > > > > that > > > > > > contain java 5 features we can now tell them to do mvn > > > > -Pjava_1_4_maven > > > > > or > > > > > > whatever the profile name is > > > > > > > > > > > > LICENSE file looks good > > > > > > ditto README > > > > > > > > > > > > ISSUE - the RELEASE_NOTES have the same issues as the binary > > > > file, but > > > > > I > > > > > > think that's becasue they come from the same file in the > > > distribution > > > > > > project > > > > > > > > > > > > Building with Java 5 successfully puts maven artifacts into my > > repo > > > > > > Building the distribution project results in archives that look > > the > > > > same > > > > > > as those you have posted (including the spurious target > directory > > in > > > > the > > > > > > samples project of the binary distribution) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ISSUE - the java5tools project contains an unneccessary > > > license.txtfile > > > > > > > > > > > > Maven artifacts > > > > > > ================ > > > > > > > > > > > > LICENSE.txt files look OK > > > > > > The META-INF/README.txt file in the sdo-impl and api jars are > for > > > > > > 1.0-incubating, date July 2007 -- I guess this is the same for > all > > > > > > > > > > > > Testing a build against the staging repo: Altering the > repository > > > url > > > > > for > > > > > > apache.incubator in the top level pom of the source distro to > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven< > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven> > > > < > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven> > > > > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven> > > > > > > > > > > and building the sample project in that distro, with no sdo > > > artifacts > > > > > in > > > > > > my local repo, successfully causes download of the SDO > artifacts > > > from > > > > > your > > > > > > staging repo, and the sample project build is successful > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 21/02/2008, Amita Vadhavkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've posted a RC1 of SDO Java 1.1-incubating at [1] > > > > > > > Maven artifacts for the release candidate are available at [2] > > > > > > > I cut a branch for this release at [3] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rat report is at - [4], [5] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please take a look at this release candidate. Also please feed > > > back > > > > on > > > > > > > the install, build and samples. Please give an early feedback, > > so > > > as > > > > > to > > > > > > > help in quickly revising the required changes and forming RC2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1< > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1> > > > < > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1> > > > > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1> > > > > > > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1> > > > > > > > [2] http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven< > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven> > > > < > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven> > > > > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven> > > > > > > > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/maven> > > > > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/branches/sdo-1.1-incubating/ > > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txt > > < > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txt > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txt > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [5] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~amita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txt > > < > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txt > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txt > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/%7Eamita/tuscany/1.1-RC1/rat-SDO-1.1-incubating-RC1-Exceptions.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note: please do reply (not reply all), so as to let the > > discussion > > > > > > > happen in > > > > > > > user ML. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Amita > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thank you... > > Regards, > > > Rajini >
