I know I already voted +1. I'd like us to consider merging this PR - i.e., create an RC2 so that we can include this late change.
https://github.com/apache/daffodil/pull/1037 This improvement/feature is rather important to various cybersecurity applications that try to use DFDL schemas both for Daffodil parse/unparse, but also as XML schemas with a variety of separate validators including those written in C/C++ so which cannot use Daffodil's schemaLocation resolver. On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 5:16 PM Mike Beckerle <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > I verified all checksums/hashes via the script which is a comment on the > release workflow page. > > I re-tested all the schemas Owl has (public and private source) using the > 3.5.0-rc1 with Java 17. > This is 84 total. Only those expected to fail (still in development) > failed. All others succeeded. > > The subset of the portable schemas still work with IBM DFDL crosstester > (which did need updates for 3.5.0) > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:19 AM Steve Lawrence <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil 3.5.0-rc1. >> >> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be >> found at: >> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/daffodil/3.5.0-rc1/ >> >> Staging artifacts can be found at: >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1033/ >> >> This release has been signed with PGP key 36F3494B033AE661, >> corresponding to [email protected], which is included in the KEYS >> file here: >> >> https://downloads.apache.org/daffodil/KEYS >> >> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v3.5.0-rc1. >> >> For reference, here is a list of all resolved JIRA issues tagged with >> 3.5.0: >> >> https://s.apache.org/daffodil-issues-3.5.0 >> >> For a summary of the changes in this release, see: >> >> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/3.5.0/ >> >> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours >> (Monday, 26 June 2023, 11:00am EDT). >> >> [ ] +1 approve >> [ ] +0 no opinion >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >> >> Thanks, >> - Steve >> >
