+1 (non-binding) Builds on OS X with both Java 8 and Java 11 using Maven 3.5.4. I verified that the OSGi module works in Karaf 4.2 The Automatic-Module-Name metadata looks good across all the artifacts The Jena-based Commons-RDF module works with this RC
Aaron > On Dec 31, 2018, at 11:10 AM, ajs6f <aj...@apache.org> wrote: > > See question about checksums below. > >> + does everything work on OS X? > > Seems to. > >> + are the GPG signatures fine? > > Yes. > >> + are the checksums correct? > > Hm, yes for the binaries, but for sources, my edition of shasum doesn't > recognize the file: > > ➜ source /usr/bin/shasum5.18 -a 512 -c jena-3.10.0-source-release.zip.sha512 > shasum: jena-3.10.0-source-release.zip.sha512: no properly formatted SHA1 > checksum lines found > > because it only contains the checksum itself: > > d0b5e47616c847d76e77f214b0c346ece34950eb0a8e0e74bfe41888cc85d63aef8149543bc84711c3c2e2442cb5151dd5a66013ccc0805c5b3ec245d6463204 > > and not also the filename to which it applies, e.g. : > > 7dafe7aa28cb85a6da9f6f2b109372ec0d097d4f07d8cb5882dde814b55cdb60512ab9bc09c2593118aaf3fbbc1f65f1d3b921faca7bddefd3f6bf9d7f332998 > apache-jena-3.10.0.tar.gz > > Is that a blocker for release? I'm not sure how precise the rules are about > the format of checksums. Do we just need to include them or to include them > in a certain format? > > >> + is there a source archive? > > Yes, built fine for me using Maven 3.5.3: > > Maven home: /usr/local/Cellar/maven/3.5.3/libexec > Java version: 1.8.0_65, vendor: Oracle Corporation > Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: UTF-8 > OS name: "mac os x", version: "10.13.6", arch: "x86_64", family: "mac" > >> + can the source archive really be built? >> (NB This requires a "mvn install" first time) > > Yes. > >> + is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact >> (both source and binary artifacts)? > > Yes. > >> + does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions? > > I don't really know how to certify the NOTICE. It's correct to the best of my > knowledge? > >> + does the tag/commit in the SCM contain reproducible sources? > > Yes. > > ajs6f > >> On Dec 30, 2018, at 12:31 PM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Here is a vote on a release of Jena 3.10.0. >> This is the first proposed release candidate. >> >> The deadline for the vote is Wednesday, 2 January 2019, at 21:00 UTC >> >> ==== Release changes: >> >> 44 JIRA: >> >> https://s.apache.org/jena-3.10.0-jira >> >> == Retirements >> >> Old modules retired and not in this release: >> >> jena-fuseki1 >> jena-csv >> >> See >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/edd5876b070f24091e19b5c1dd274ef46c74a0f920d419a29a59f66b@%3Cusers.jena.apache.org%3E >> >> == Changes of note: >> >> The project intends to replace jena-spatial in a future release with Greg's >> GeoSPARQL: >> https://github.com/galbiston/geosparql-jena >> >> JENA-1621 : Lucene upgrade to 7.4 >> May need to reload Lucene indexes. >> >> (e.g. the Lucene index was create originally with Lucene v5.x (prior Jena >> 3.3.0). See Lucene upgrade tool. >> https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/7_4/indexupgrader-tool.html >> >> JENA-1623 : Fuseki security - user authentication and access control. >> JENA-1627 : HTTPs support >> >> http://jena.staging.apache.org/documentation/fuseki2/data-access-control >> >> == Updates >> >> Only plugins. JENA-1624 >> >> surefire : 2.21.0 -> 2.22.1 (+ SUREFIRE-1588) >> compiler : 3.7.0 -> 3.8.0 >> shade : 3.1.0 -> 3.2.0 >> >> ==== Release Vote >> >> Everyone, not just committers, is invited to test and vote. >> Please download and test the proposed release. >> >> Staging repository: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejena-1028 >> >> Proposed dist/ area: >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/jena/ >> >> Keys: >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jena/dist/KEYS >> >> Git commit (browser URL): >> https://github.com/apache/jena/commit/ab482e34 >> >> Git Commit Hash: >> ab482e34584350af717db1a8d698aa3949e51871 >> >> Git Commit Tag: >> jena-3.10.0 >> >> Please vote to approve this release: >> >> [ ] +1 Approve the release >> [ ] 0 Don't care >> [ ] -1 Don't release, because ... >> >> This vote will be open to at least >> >> Wednesday, 2 January 2019, at 20:00 UTC >> >> If you expect to check the release but the time limit does not work >> for you, please email within the schedule above with an expected time >> and we can extend the vote period. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Andy >> >> Checking needed: >> >> + does everything work on Linux? >> + does everything work on MS Windows? >> + does everything work on OS X? >> + are the GPG signatures fine? >> + are the checksums correct? >> + is there a source archive? >> >> + can the source archive really be built? >> (NB This requires a "mvn install" first time) >> + is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact >> (both source and binary artifacts)? >> + does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions? >> + have any licenses of dependencies changed due to upgrades? >> if so have LICENSE and NOTICE been upgraded appropriately? >> + does the tag/commit in the SCM contain reproducible sources? >
