So Mike, unless you’d like to follow up on that cross-JDK binary build, I am
going to post a release announcement on user@. To me the important piece that
guarantees valid binary assemblies regardless of JDK is this:
<plugin>
<artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
<version>2.3.2</version>
<configuration>
<source>1.5</source>
<target>1.5</target>
</configuration>
</plugin>
Andrus
On Feb 16, 2014, at 10:37 PM, Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry, I should’ve waited for your vote and thanks a lot for doing a thorough
> review.
>
>> checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
>
> Yeah, lately we’ve been using gpg for that instead of md5 command:
>
> gpg --print-md MD5 cayenne-X.X.tar.gz
>
>> Turns out we built the zip versions with
>> java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
>> that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
>> Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
>> they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
>> particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
>> a 1.6 JRE?
>
>
> Of course. The same set of sources is used on Mac to build .dmg and .tar.gz
> and then on Windows to build .zip. My two envs happened to have different
> JDKs. So that’s causing these small difference. I’d say there are no
> essential differences to worry about (although I’ll try to keep my JDKs in
> sync across platforms in the future).
>
> In fact we make a claim that Cayenne 3.1 is compatible with Java 1.5. So if
> there was no backwards compatibility, we would’ve been forced to use JDK 1.5.
> If we actually see a problem, we should definitely pull the binary and redo
> it, but I don’t think we will.
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I didn't realized the vote was closed, and finally finished my review today:
>>
>> Source provided: check
>> checksums match: check (Did we change our md5 formats? The current
>> format doesn't feed back into md5sum)
>> signatures match: check
>> Source builds: check
>> appropriately licensed: checked by rat
>>
>> My src jar builds match the tar.gz versions (except for timestamps),
>> but not the zip versions. Turns out we built the zip versions with
>> java 1.6 and the tar.gz versions with java 1.7! not sure exactly how
>> that happened, but I wouldn't think we should be releasing like this!
>> Users will potentially have different results depending on whether
>> they grabbed the zip or the tar.gz, and I know that I'm not always
>> particular about which format I use. Will the 1.7 jar files work on
>> a 1.6 JRE?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Andrus Adamchik
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I am adding my +1. And I am closing the vote. Here is the list of votes:
>>>
>>> John Huss +1
>>> Aristedes Maniatis +1
>>> Michael Gentry +1
>>> Andrus Adamchik +1
>>>
>>> We have 4 +1s and no other votes, so the release becomes official. I will
>>> post the files now and update the downloads page.
>>>
>>> Thanks everyone, and let's get ready for 3.2 vote soon :)
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
