Hi, Sten Roger Sandvik schrieb: > You are right. We should probably skip version 2.0.0 and go ahead to do a > version 2.0.1. I do not tag 2.0.0 since it's a failed release.
Or brather 2.0.2 because this is bundle release. The reason has been outline before but basically it is because Maven thinks 2.0.1 is more recent than 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT while OSGi thinks 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT is more recent. For this reason we reserve odd numbers for SNAPSHOTs and even numbers for releases. [This rule only applies for bundles and not for maven bundles were we just increment as usual] Regards Felix > > / srs > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org>wrote: > >> On 9/30/09 23:31, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the feedback. I will check out the MD5 and SHA1 digests. Also >>> will fix the issues that you are listing here. Was not sure how to do the >>> NOTICE file so it was just a copy from something else :-) Do it need to be >>> a >>> 2.0.1 release? Could I just rollback the release by rolling back the pom's >>> and delete the tag? >>> >>> >> For me, personally, I don't care. However, officially, the issue is since >> it was a failed release, we shouldn't release it all, because some people >> might have grabbed the last JARs and are treating them as the official >> release knowingly or not. So, the only way to prevent that is to not have >> that release version at all, which means we do 2.0.1 instead. >> >> As for why the digests failed in the first place, I don't really know. I >> thought Maven just did this automatically. I am a release newbie myself, so >> maybe someone else has some advice. >> >> -> richard >> >> >> BR, >>> Sten Roger Sandvik >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org >>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -1 >>>> >>>> There are quite a few issues, but it is really not all that >>>> bad...actually, >>>> there is only one issue that is causing me to give a -1, which is the >>>> fact >>>> that the MD5 and SHA1 digests don't appear to match for me. Not sure why >>>> that would be the case. >>>> >>>> There are also a raft of other more minor issues that would not have >>>> caused >>>> a -1 necessarily, but now we can fix those too. They are: >>>> >>>> * The dependencies on OSGi should be on the official JARs at the >>>> appropriate version level needed (i.e., lowest acceptable version). >>>> * It appears that all NOTICE use the same name (Apache Felix HTTP >>>> Service), but it should be different for each subproject module. >>>> For example, the bridge module should be "Apache Felix HTTP >>>> Service Bridge". >>>> * NOTICE file for api says it includes OSGi code, but it doesn't. >>>> Should also include Apache under "uses". >>>> * NOTICE file for base says it includes OSGi code, but it doesn't. >>>> Should also include Apache under "uses". >>>> * NOTICE file for bridge should include Apache under "uses". >>>> * NOTICE file for bundle should include Apache under "uses". >>>> * NOTICE file for jetty should include Apache under "uses". >>>> * NOTICE file for proxy says it includes OSGi, but it only uses. >>>> Also should include Apache in "uses". >>>> * NOTICE for samples bridge WAR file is not in META-INF directory, >>>> neither are LICENSE files. Should verify dependencies listed in >>>> NOTICE file. >>>> * NOTICE for samples filter says it includes OSGi, but it only uses. >>>> Also should include Apache in "uses". >>>> * NOTICE for samples whiteboard says it includes OSGi, but it only >>>> uses. Also should include Apache in "uses". >>>> * NOTICE for whiteboard says it includes OSGi, but it only uses. >>>> Also should include Apache in "uses". >>>> >>>> Note that if we have dependencies on Apache software, we still list them >>>> in >>>> the "uses" section of the NOTICE file...this is overly cautious, but not >>>> a >>>> big deal if we already have to keep track of third-party dependencies. >>>> >>>> Doing a release is difficult, so trying it as a newbie is to be >>>> commended. >>>> :-) At this point, we will need to scrap this release and do a 2.0.1 >>>> release >>>> with fixes for all of the above. Still, the main issue was the digests. >>>> >>>> Sorry, but good work none the less. Let me know if you have any >>>> questions. >>>> >>>> -> richard >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/28/09 22:59, Sten Roger Sandvik wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi. >>>>> >>>>> I have prepared a release candidate for the improved http service that I >>>>> contributed earlier (FELIX-1456). It is versioned 2.0.0 since it's a >>>>> major >>>>> refactoring and includes much more functionality than the original >>>>> http.jetty module. Docs will be available on wiki very soon. >>>>> >>>>> This is my first release ever so hopefully I have done all the things >>>>> right >>>>> :-) >>>>> >>>>> We solved 7 issues in this release: >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX/fixforversion/12314224 >>>>> >>>>> There are 8 outstanding issues: >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX/component/12310340 >>>>> >>>>> Staging repository: >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/felix-staging-007/ >>>>> >>>>> You can use this UNIX script to download the release and verify the >>>>> signatures: >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/check_staged_release.sh >>>>> >>>>> Usage: >>>>> sh check_staged_release.sh 007 /tmp/felix-staging >>>>> >>>>> Please vote to approve this release: >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release >>>>> [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments) >>>>> >>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> Sten Roger Sandvik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >
