I just got back from PTO and won't have time to evaluate rc2 today. I vote 0, which means I'm fine if you go ahead if you have enough other votes.
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 9:02 AM Davin Shearer <scholarsm...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > v1.3.1 is solid and is a big improvement over v1.3.0. Mike B. gave RC1 > a +1 and the difference between RC1 and RC2 is just fixing the handling of > null bytes in the Data Editor. > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 2:45 PM Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Checks I marked as MINOR and I'm fine with them being fixed prior to the > > release (website/github issues updates) or in the next release > > (license/reproducibility) > > > > I checked: > > > > [OK] hashes and signatures of source and helper binaries are correct > > [OK] signature of git tag is correct > > [OK] source release matches git tag > > [OK] source compiles using yarn package > > [OK] tests pass using yarn test > > [OK] RAT check passes > > [OK] no unexpected binaries in source > > [OK] vsix installs without error > > [OK] No open CVE's found using sbt-dependency-check plugin and yarn > > audit (except for false positives) > > [OK] played around with autocomplete and seemed to work as expected > > > > [MINOR] Page for release candidate published on website > > - Missing site on daffodil.apache.org, PR opened but not merged > > > > [MINOR] compiled source matches convenience binary where expected > > - The JAXB generated class files in daffodil-debugger jar are different > > when I build from source. It's not clear to me what is different > > (javap shows no differences) but this makes reproducible builds > > difficult to verify and is a bit concerning. I don't know why these > > files would be different. Even if generated from JAXB, I would expect > > it to be deterministic and create the same .class files. Please look > > into this for the next major release, reproducible builds are > > important. > > > > [MINOR] no closed issues without a milestone > > - There are a number of issues that have been closed but have not been > > assigned a milestone. Were they closed as part of 1.3.1? Can they be > > added to this milestone or a previous milestone so there's a record of > > what release fixed these issue? > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+no%3Amilestone > > > > [MINOR] src and binaries include correct LICENSE/NOTICE > > - typescript is listed in the NONOTICE file but is a devDependency and > > isn't bundled in the vsix file and so does not need to be mentioned > > - org.apache.tika.tika-core-2.7.0.jar is bundled as part of omega-edit. > > It is licensed under ALv2 so is compatible, but its NOTICE content is > > is missing from build/package/NOTICE > > > > > > On 2023-09-05 04:25 PM, Shane Dell wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil VS Code 1.3.1-rc2. > > > > > > All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be > > > found at: > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/daffodil/daffodil-vscode/1.3.1-rc2 > > > > > > This release has been signed with PGP key > > > 86DDE7B41291E380237934F007570D3ADC76D51B, corresponding > > > to shaned...@apache.org, which is included in the KEYS file here: > > > https://downloads.apache.org/daffodil/KEYS > > > > > > The release candidate has been tagged in git with 1.3.1-rc2. > > > > > > For reference, here is a list of all closed GitHub issues tagged with > > 1.3.1: > > > https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode/milestone/10?closed=1 > > > > > > Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours > > > (Friday, 08 September 2023, 4:30pm EST). > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > > > > > Documentation for 1.3.1 can be found here > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode/wiki/Apache-Daffodil%E2%84%A2-Extension-for-Visual-Studio-Code:-v1.3.1 > > . > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > - Shane Dell > > > > > > > >
