No, that's fine. It shouldn't block the release. I'd prefer we used the same jdk to build the release for all systems, but perhaps that's not practical.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
