Re: Releasing Commons
Karl Pauls wrote: > I have to admit that I didn't follow the progress of commons that > closely (so it's great that we see progress again!). I do remember > however that there was some concern about the idea some while back > about the problem that some of the wrapped projects might not work > properly in an OSGi environment. So I guess my overall question in > regard to releasing commons is, have you actually tried all of the > resulting artifacts and think they do what they are supposed to do (or > somebody else)? > Yes, this is a good point - we are using quiet a few of them and they work for us :) But anyway, that's the point of voting. As soon as we put one of them up for a vote, everyone should only give a +1 if she really thinks that everything is fine with the artifact and that might include having a working version. So, if we don't gather three binding votes, the artifact will not be released. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Felix 1.0.0 framework and main release
Karl Pauls wrote: > I just called a vote on the two needed artifacts. Personally, I'm not > sure this is really needed because we voted on the source releases and > somehow I'd say that the resulting artifacts are covered as well but > it seemed quicker to just vote on them again. > It is needed - we have to vote on each and every artifact we release. If we just vote on the source who can ensure that the binary artifact is really the one built from the source? And the build process might pull in other stuff etc. (Ok, in our case these points might not apply, but there is no other way to ensure everything is working properly in general than voting on every released artifact) Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release preparation
Karl Pauls wrote: >> putting our releases up to the maven repository was a little bit work, >> as I had to create the correct directory structure by hand and (more >> important) had to extract the pom files for the various artifacts, >> create md5s and sign them. > > On this subject, would you mind if I replace your signature with our > release key signature? > > I think that would make it more consistent since that is the key we > currently use for the artifacts. > I don't mind - go ahead - alternatively I could add my key to the keys file. Whatever you prefer. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Felix 1.0.0 framework and main binary release
[X] +1 Approve the Felix 1.0.0 framework and main binary releases. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Felix 1.0.0 framework and main binary release
[X] +1 Approve the Felix 1.0.0 framework and main binary releases. Didier
Re: Main vs Framework
On Tuesday 07 August 2007 17:18, Karl Pauls wrote: > Does that make it more clear? Perhaps ;o) Hasn't 72 hours voting period long past... just kidding. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
Re: Main vs Framework
> Hi, > > I am looking at the two binaries to be released. The only difference I can see > is; > > a) Main contains the Main class and th Main-Class manifest entry. > > b) The Framework has a ExportPackage manifest entry. > > Maybe I missed something, but is it worthwhile to maintain two such similar > artifacts? Well, the thing is that the main project does more then just create this artifact. It does create the basic felix project we released earlier (felix-1.0.0.zip). In other words, all one needs to do to get a simple felix shell is to build the main project and call "java -jar bin/felix.jar". So that is the justification for the main project. Additionally, since the framework is geared towards easy embedding we just have "our" main class in the main project and not in the framework project. Does that make it more clear? regards, Karl > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er > I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc > I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug > -- Karl Pauls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Main vs Framework
Hi, I am looking at the two binaries to be released. The only difference I can see is; a) Main contains the Main class and th Main-Class manifest entry. b) The Framework has a ExportPackage manifest entry. Maybe I missed something, but is it worthwhile to maintain two such similar artifacts? Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
Re: Release preparation
On 8/7/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 07 August 2007 05:12, Karl Pauls wrote: > > On this subject, would you mind if I replace your signature with our > > release key signature? > > The KEYS file will contain multiple keys over time, as release manager will > both be varying over time and commonly over different parts of the project. > > Best would be cross signing of your keys and put those in the KEYS file > instead. I agree, but then we need to add the keys and do the cross signing. Right now parts of the stuff in the maven repo is signed with a different key which looks strange to me. So if no one objects I'm going to go ahead and fix this. regards, Karl > Cheers > Niclas > -- Karl Pauls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Felix 1.0.0 framework and main binary release
On 8/7/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 07 August 2007 05:00, Karl Pauls wrote: > > I would like to call a vote on the framework and main binaries in > > order to make them available via maven. The jar artifacts, the > > signature files, and MD5 message digests are available here: > > [x] +1 Approve the Felix 1.0.0 framework and main binary releases. > > Just curious, will the previously released sources build these artifacts with > those names?? Yes. All I did was to build the source - we need it like this for the maven repo. regards, Karl > Cheers > Niclas > -- Karl Pauls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
