On 16 April 2013 22:24, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez < juanpablo.san...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sebb, > > first of all, thanks for your time reviewing the RC and your comments > > seems we'll have to cancel the vote. Hopefully, we'll have a new RC in a > few days with all these issues fixed. > > Some notes, though: > > - I'm especially worried about the NOTICE file, how short is short enough? > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice > Could you provide a good example from any other project so we can take a > look at it? To take a grasp of how we should do it. We'd like to have it as > good as the LICENSE file (also, the incorrect year in NOTICE was also > pointed by Siegfried, but not as a blocker, so it's fixed in trunk). > > - The signature files is big mistake on my side. Don't know how or what did > I did when doing the scp of the binaries. It's.. awkward. > It also shows that there are problems with how others have checked the RC. > - IDE specific files: right now our build tool is Ant so, in order to ease > the initial hop in, we provide Eclipse specific files with the project > configuration. We're working on moving to Maven, which will allow us to > delete those files from svn. > The build tool is irrelevant here. Both Ant and Maven can be used without Eclipse, and vice-versa. If you want to help users to set up Eclipse, by all means provide sample configuration files, but don't use the default names or you will cause problems for Eclipse users that don't have the same setup as you. e.g. different default JVM or different plugins. thanks & best regards, > juan pablo > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:54 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 15 April 2013 22:56, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez < > > juanpablo.san...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > We've held a vote on jspwiki-dev to release 2.9.1-incubating [1]. > > > > > > The vote on release candidate has been open for more than 72 hours on > the > > > developer mailing list. After the voting timeframe, we have the > following > > > voting results: > > > - 1 binding vote (from Siegfried Goeschl -mentor-) > > > - 4 non-binding votes (from jspwiki developers) > > > > > > I'd therefore like to ask now the general incubator to check our > release > > > candidate. The release notes (fixed issues) are available at the Jira > > Issue > > > Tracker [2]. > > > > > > > > > [1] http://s.apache.org/iy > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310732&version=12321249 > > > > > > Please find attached below the concrete details on the release and on > the > > > vote. > > > > > > thanks in advance, > > > juan pablo > > > > > > > > > =================================================== > > > Note that we are voting upon the source (subversion tag and signed > > > artifacts). Binaries are provided for convenience only. > > > > > > > > However binaries should still have the correct N&L files, and the > > DISCLAIMER (for Incubator podlings) > > > > > > > The tag to be voted upon: > > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/jspwiki/tags/jspwiki_2_9_1_incubating_rc1 > > > > > > > > There's no DISCLAIMER file > > > > The NOTICE file has lots of extra content which is not relevant; the > NOTICE > > file must be a short as possible, but no smaller. > > Like a good poem, it's finished when no more can be taken out. > > > > Note in particular that the NOTICE file must only contain required > notices > > for bits that are actually included in the enclosing archive. > > > > The year in the NOTICE file looks wrong. > > > > IMO those must be fixed before a release can be signed off. > > > > The LICENSE file is very clear; it's great to have the full jar names > with > > versions. > > > > Probably not a good idea to include the Eclipse .classpath and .project > > files in SVN as these files are host-specific. [Not a blocker] > > If you want to provide sample versions as a starting point, this can be > > done by providing copies with a different name and perhaps path. > > For example, Tomcat puts their versions here: > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/res/ide-support/eclipse/ > > > > Likewise, the .externalToolBuilders and .settings trees don't belong in > SVN > > as they are IDE and host-specific. > > > > > > > Source and binary files, with RAT report: > > > http://people.apache.org/~juanpablo/releases/2.9.1-incubating-0-rc1/ > > > > > > > > There are no signatures (.asc files). > > > > There's not much point in including SHA512 hashes as well as SHA1. > > Hashes are really only useful for checking whether the download > succeeded; > > as such MD5 and SHA1 are sufficient > > > > > > > Checksums: > > > > > > JSPWiki-2.9.1-incubating-bin.zip > > > MD5: 76bf79828fd709fc3dbf2c230dd546ff > > > SHA1: bec05e47b21cdacaa171323d2fe7e28fa2a99574 > > > SHA512: > > > > > > > > > 13b8f33137287a32a04737b7d2dbe3d32651d527983d88f3c89ebe3db1e6428ece93a1d541d9a2224dbd2a12f8a0bf866952d0b65bd0fb90ccd25f668653a954 > > > > > > JSPWiki-2.9.1-incubating-src.zip > > > MD5: daa25020abeed3762aa901fa6fd35f34 > > > SHA1: 44075855d753335688e1ea89c8dbf6054d4d506d > > > SHA512: > > > > > > > > > ecf8e90a9088ca27d0e302fe81b80b996bcf89d24ec816f475055250b7cc6b0e0e8b1ed5a6499a90285b7f8c8485c3cacd1b7985df9fef44b22e01f0035e95b8 > > > > > > > > Thanks - it's useful to have at least one hash in the vote email as that > > helps tie the vote to the archives. > > > > > > > JSPWiki's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: > > > http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/jspwiki/KEYS > > > > > > > > Except that there are no signature files... > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating > > > [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... > > > > > > > IMO, there are several blockers that need to be fixed before release. > > >
