Can you please reply to this thread and change the subject to add "[RESULT]" to the subject? This will close the thread.
Gary On Nov 12, 2017 15:15, "Sergio Fernández" <wik...@apache.org> wrote: > Stian, I made a mistake, so we preferred to skip 0.4.0 for safety. > > About the release itself, that's reason enough gor me for a RC2. The I can > also align with Jena's recent release and so on. I hope to have time to > prepare it within the next couple of days. Any further feedback will be > more than welcome. > > Then, please, consider this vote CANCELLED. > > > > > On Nov 10, 2017 05:47, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <st...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thanks for the effort, Sergio! And also thanks for the clean-up, Gary! > About time for a release. (What happened to 0.4.0?) > > > My vote: +0 (binding): Extra files in the dist archive > > > Checked: signatures, hashes, builds. > > > Tested with Ubuntu 16.04: > $ mvn -v > Apache Maven 3.3.9 > Maven home: /usr/share/maven > Java version: 1.8.0_151, vendor: Oracle Corporation > Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre > Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8 > OS name: "linux", version: "4.10.0-38-generic", arch: "amd64", family: > "unix" > > > > > The commons-rdf-examples still says 0.3.0 in its pom - perhaps we > should look at a way to add the examples straight to the build so its > version numbers get updated by the release process -- however I think > it's good that it has a com.example pom.xml rather than implying to > fresh Maven users they need to use our <parent> etc. > > (btw, the examples compile and run well updated at 0.5.0) > > > About extra files: > > I see release.properties and pom.xml.releaseBackup is included in the > zip file, which is a bit odd. This implies you zipped it up manually? > This is a bit fragile.. > > > I would expect the release file to be the same as > commons-rdf-parent-0.5.0-src.zip in the Maven repo > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > orgapachecommons-1287/org/apache/commons/commons-rdf-parent/0.5.0/ > > That archive does not include any releasePackup files or similar. It > should also be under target/checkout/target after you released - > probably then called apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0-src.zip because the > release profile correctly overrides the local name. > > > > stain@biggie:~/tmp$ diff -ur from-git from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0 > Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-api: > pom.xml.releaseBackup > Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-integration-tests: > pom.xml.releaseBackup > Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-jena: > pom.xml.releaseBackup > Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-jsonld-java: > pom.xml.releaseBackup > Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-rdf4j: > pom.xml.releaseBackup > Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0/commons-rdf-simple: > pom.xml.releaseBackup > Only in from-git: .git > Only in from-git: .gitignore > Only in from-dist/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0: release.properties > Only in from-git: .travis.yml > > stain@biggie:~/tmp$ diff -ur from-git from-repo/apache-commons-rdf-0.5.0 > Only in from-git: .git > Only in from-git: .gitignore > Only in from-git: .travis.yml > > So the one in Maven staging repo more closely match git -- also if > it's the very same file (although different filename) a pet love of me > to easily double-check that the staging repo covers directly the > source of the RC vote. > > > My preference would be to put the renamed -src.zip from the staging > repo in dist and re-run the VOTE as "RC2" with same staging repo > > Of course in this case there is not any harm of those extra files (and > I verified it still matched git tag and repo archive) - so just a +0 > from me. > > On 7 November 2017 at 03:40, Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > coming closed to the Commons PMC procedure, I'd like to update the vote > > with the following information: > > > > * Source release can be found in the office dist area: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/rdf/apache- > commons-rdf-0.5.0-RC1/ > > > > * 0.5.0-RC1 tagged at git: > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-rdf.git;a=commit;h= > ebffdc5890a0f8523b07ff6df8afae461117f832 > > > > * Hashes and signatures remain as the original email. > > > > * Added our GPG keys to the Commons file at > > https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS > > > > I hope these changes makes the PMC more conformable about voting the > > release. If not, please let me know and I'll try to cut a new RC > addressing > > any possible issue. > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> of course, my vote for Apache Commons RDF 0.5.0 from RC1: +1 > (non-binding) > >> > >> Thanks for all feedback. I'll try to answer some of the comments > received > >> so far. > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Aaron Coburn <acob...@amherst.edu> > wrote: > >> > > >> > I did have some problems building with JDK9 (OS X), first with the > >> version of > >> > the JaCoCo plugin and then later (after changing to a more recent > >> version of > >> > the plugin) with the japicmp plugin. These would be nice things to > fix, > >> but > >> > I don't see any reason that they need to hold up this release, as the > >> > JDK8-built artifacts work just fine when running in JDK9. > >> > >> I guess most of us we have quite some pending tasks regarding upgrade > >> / make compatible our different source bases with JDK9. > >> > >> So I've registered the request as COMMONSRDF-67. > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Bruno P. Kinoshita < > >> brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.invalid> wrote: > >> > > >> > Any plans to use the changes.xml file for next releases? > >> > >> Sound like a good idea to me. Registwered as COMMONSRDF-68 for the next > >> release. > >> > >> > I have an automated script that downloads the KEYS file from > >> https://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS, > >> > and it failed. Then re-read the e-mail and found the KEYS here > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/commonsrdf/KEYS: > >> > > >> > Does it matter which KEYS file is used after the component has been > >> graduated? > >> > I'm fine with the KEYS file location being in the vote thread, but > just > >> thought it > >> > would be worth checking. > >> > >> As I pointed in a previous thread, although we graduated as a component, > >> most of the team behind the RDF component we are not PMC members. I > don't > >> have karma for that, but someone should add our KEYS there. I just > though > >> the file we had during incubation was good enough. > >> > >> > >> > Another minor nit pick: Notice file message was not updated to 2017. > >> > >> Do you think that could be blocking? Well, noted as COMMONSRDF-69 for > now. > >> > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >
