I have promoted the maven artifacts to the release repository, they are now available at https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases and should get mirrored to the central repo imminently.
You are editing the right file Justin, but it looks like the live version was updated without updating the source file accordingly (see http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1088983). The live version is the example to follow when updating the source, it was updated to remove the older release info after some discussion between the PMC following a mail from infra about removing old artifacts from the mirrors. Only the latest version should get a specific call out on the download page since its what we recommend people use, but anything older is always available in the archives. Once the 0.10 release is mirrored, announcements made, website updated etc then we should probably remove 0.8 from the dist mirrors fairly promptly this time. Robbie On 26 April 2011 20:47, Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com> wrote: > With some help (thanks, Nuno), the 0.10 artifacts are now moved into > position. The apache documentation suggests it will be 24 to 48 hours > before they propagate to all the mirrors. > > A question: I'm preparing a patch for the qpid download page, but trunk's > download.html doesn't match what's on the web. Trunk's has a previous > release section (for 0.6 at present) and the web just has a link to the > release archive. Am I editing the right file? > (qpid/trunk/qpid/doc/website/content/download.html) > > Thanks, > Justin > > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Justin Ross wrote: > > Thanks, Robbie. The note about the maven artifacts is indeed helpful. I >> wasn't sure about that. >> >> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> Thats great Justin, good work on getting us here :) >>> >>> Let me know when the files get pushed out to the dist server to be >>> mirrored >>> and I can promote the staged maven artifacts to the release repository >>> for >>> mirroring to the central repo (just so there is no doubt: the maven >>> subdirectory produced by the release script should not be distributed via >>> the apache dist mirrors). >>> >>> Regards >>> Robbie. >>> >>> On 26 April 2011 16:39, Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, this is just to note that the 0.10 release using the existing RC is >>>> as >>>> of now confirmed and the vote is closed. I've begun the steps to >>>> publish >>>> the release. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Justin Ross wrote: >>>> >>>> Restating Steve's and Marnie's conclusions just so everyone knows our >>>> >>>>> status: >>>>> >>>>> This vote will remain open until Monday morning. Anyone who wants to >>>>> change his or her vote should do so before that time. If the vote >>>>> passes, >>>>> we will release the existing RC as our final 0.10 release. >>>>> >>>>> Justin >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Steve Huston wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I agree, Marnie. I'd give until Monday morning for anyone to change >>>>> >>>>>> their vote, or to vote at all, and then close it. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Marnie McCormack [mailto:marnie.mccorm...@googlemail.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:44 AM >>>>>>> To: dev@qpid.apache.org >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 0.10 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this [VOTE} thread could be closed. The question is >>>>>>> does anyone wish to change their vote in the light of the >>>>>>> discussions over the 7 days it has been open ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We should decide today if we're proceeding or not, as its all >>>>>>> getting a little confusing ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If people are uncomfortable with the muddying of the [VOTE] >>>>>>> thread with discussions, we could re-start but I don't think >>>>>>> we 'need' to from a process point of view. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>>>> Marnie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Rajith Attapattu >>>>>>> <rajit...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Gordon Sim >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <g...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 04/20/2011 02:38 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While the root cause for both these items have been >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> present in 0.8 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> (and perhaps before for QPID-3216) these issues are >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *more likely* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> to happen in the current release than in 0.8 In that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sense they are >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> regressions, and certainly from a users pov of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> are. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is that based on? The fact that we've seen these >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> test failures? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or identification of specific changes first included in 0.10 that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> make this worse? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All commits related to QPID-3214 are in 0.10 and in 0.8 as well (I >>>>>>>> stand to be corrected on this). But somehow this became >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> more visible >>>>>>> >>>>>>> now. My suspicion is that some other changes in that time frame has >>>>>>>> made this issue more likely. >>>>>>>> Unfortunately I am unable to pin point what exactly those >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> changes are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The fact that our tests are failing is not helping either. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think recent changes in the client and broker may have >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> made these >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> issues happen more likely. While r1092510 may have >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> caused QPID-3216 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> to happen more readily there may be other triggers that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can cause >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> this as well. (Also please note that r1092510 is actually the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> correct behaviour and if thats causing a deadlock then it's a >>>>>>>>>> concern.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The point is r1092510 is not included in the current 0.10 release >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> candidate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Correct and one reason why it wasn't was bcos I wasn't sure >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> about it's >>>>>>> >>>>>>> consequences and nobody seems to know why the existing code >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> was done >>>>>>> >>>>>>> that way. However that is just one code path that caused this >>>>>>>> deadlock, there can be others and bcos of test failures we are not >>>>>>>> sure. Perhaps I am a bit pessimistic here, but then it's >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> always better >>>>>>> >>>>>>> be safer than sorry. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Same can be said for QPID-3214. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The fact remains that we do have deadlocks lying around >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> in the code >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> and they have a better chance of happening with 0.10 ! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Again, why do 'they have a better chance of happening with 0.10'? >>>>>>>>> I'm not saying it is not true, and I'm not disagreeing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the current >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> locking 'strategy' seems very prone to deadlocks. I would >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> just like >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to see a more concrete demonstration that there is regression. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately I am unable to pin point to certain commits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to backup my >>>>>>> >>>>>>> assertions. That is one reason why I didn't want to hold up the >>>>>>>> release and didn't make any of the two JIRA's as blockers. >>>>>>>> But it's still makes me a bit uncomfortable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rajith >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation >>>>>>>>> Project: http://qpid.apache.org >>>>>>>>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation >>>>>>>> Project: http://qpid.apache.org >>>>>>>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation >>>>>> Project: http://qpid.apache.org >>>>>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation >>>> Project: http://qpid.apache.org >>>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation >> Project: http://qpid.apache.org >> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org >> >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org > >
