Well that's a Felix policy and not an Aries one ;) However you are right that no Apache release should contain provisional OSGi API. Currently the Enterprise R6 release is available as Proposed Final Draft [1]. It is highly unlikely that the specification will change while it's being voted on by the OSGi members so personally I don't see a big issue releasing Aries Async at this stage, but if others think we should wait until the OSGi release voting has concluded then we can do that. In that case we'll have to delay this release to early August...
Cheers, David [1] http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/Drafts On 13 July 2015 at 15:33, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> wrote: > I don't plan to spoil the fun, but shouldn't we wait with a release > until there is a released final API of the OSGi stuff? > > In the Felix project we do this (see > http://felix.apache.org/documentation/development/provisional-osgi-api-policy.html) > > Carsten > > Am 13.07.15 um 16:08 schrieb David Bosschaert: >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> This is what mvn release:prepare does. It creates a tag in SVN. If the >> release doesn't succeed for some reason later on the tag stays left >> behind. >> >> When I'll re-spin the release I'll use 1.0.1. There are no 1.0.0 >> artifacts available in maven. I personally don't see the need to >> remove tags for failed releases as I think it's messy. Just use the >> next number as numbers are cheap. >> >> David >> >> On 13 July 2015 at 14:32, Jeremy Hughes <jpjhug...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi David, it seems the async release that was cancelled has ended up >>> in the aries/tags dir. Is this by mistake? I don't think it's an issue >>> for now, but when you do the 1.0.0 release I think you'll need to >>> remove that tag. I guess the 'cancelling a release' didn't undo the >>> tag. >>> >>> On 7 July 2015 at 11:31, David Bosschaert <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Ok - then let's cancel the vote. >>>> >>>> I should be able to restart it some time next week. >>>> >>>> On 7 July 2015 at 09:42, Timothy Ward <timothyjw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> Hi David, >>>>> >>>>> I think I’m right in saying that the Apache release process needs the >>>>> source headers for approval. :( >>>>> >>>>> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#full-copy-for-each-source-file >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>>> On 6 Jul 2015, at 08:27, David Bosschaert <david.bosscha...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Tim, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that's pretty much always how it happens for something that is >>>>>> in the process of being released. You can add the staging repository >>>>>> to your maven repos and then you should be able to rebuild from >>>>>> sources. Does someone have a better way of doing this? >>>>>> >>>>>> If people think I should re-spin the release because of the headers, >>>>>> let me know. >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4 July 2015 at 00:23, Timothy Ward <timothyjw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the good news is that the release versions all pass the relevant >>>>>>> compliance tests for their respective specifications, but I have noted >>>>>>> two issues… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’m unable to build from source unless I re-version all of the bundles >>>>>>> to 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT and do a mvn clean install first. If I fail to do >>>>>>> this then the version checker fails the build. Once I have >>>>>>> 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT versions in my local repository then everything works >>>>>>> fine. >>>>>>> The RAT check fails because the source files are missing Apache licence >>>>>>> headers (my fault originally). This applies to the Promise API >>>>>>> implementation and the Async API and Async Impl bundles. I’m not sure >>>>>>> what the policy is for licence headers on the classes/interfaces in the >>>>>>> org.osgi.xxx namespace. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In summary, I’m +1 for the binaries, which work and contain all of the >>>>>>> necessary licence info. I’m not sure if we need to respin for the >>>>>>> source/build issues though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3 Jul 2015, at 16:42, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyoz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> Sergey >>>>>>>> On 03/07/15 12:55, dav...@apache.org wrote: >>>>>>>>> Here's my +1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 3 July 2015 at 11:36, <dav...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm calling a vote on the first release of the Aries Asynchronous >>>>>>>>>> OSGi >>>>>>>>>> Services implementation. This implements the OSGi Asynchronous >>>>>>>>>> Services specification (chapter 138) and the OSGi Promises >>>>>>>>>> specification (chapter 705) of the upcoming OSGi Enterprise R6 >>>>>>>>>> specifications, which are available as proposed final draft [1]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Staging repository: >>>>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-1031 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For details on getting started see >>>>>>>>>> http://aries.apache.org/modules/async-svcs.html >>>>>>>>>> Kudos to Tim Ward for providing this implementation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please vote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 Approve the release >>>>>>>>>> -1 Do not approve the release (please explain why) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David Bosschaert >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/Drafts >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >> > > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe Research Switzerland > cziege...@apache.org
