Re: [VOTE] Yoko 1.1 with osgi
On Apr 27, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: > I don't know what happened but I see a bunch of "checksum failed" > messages from maven when downloading yoko artifacts. I also downloaded > some of these artifacts (without maven) and compared checksums and > they do NOT match. It looks like Brian succeeded in fixing the checksums on apache's nexus repo but they must have escaped to maven central before he did this. I'm trying to find out if there's anything we can do. thanks for the heads-up david jencks > > Jarek > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: >> >> On Apr 26, 2010, at 5:51 PM, David Jencks wrote: >> >>> Kevan, >>> >>> I've talked with Brian Fox and he says the checksums are recalculated when >>> a staging repo is promoted. So, fixing them in the staging repo would have >>> no lasting effect. >>> >>> Based on this would you be interested in revising your -1? >> >> Heh. So there's no point in validating the checksums to begin with? :) >> >> I'm ok assuming that the checksum issue will be fixed during the release >> process. Given the fact that I'm happy with the artifacts and signature -- >> here's my +1 >> >> --kevan >> >>> >>> thanks >>> david jencks >>> >>> On Apr 25, 2010, at 4:27 PM, David Jencks wrote: >>> The bad checksums seem to be because somehow maven 2.2.0 got installed on my system. I have no idea why, but it's known to produce bad checksums. I'll try to contact e.g. brian fox to see what we can do about them. I think usually what has happened in the past is to promote, then fix, but maybe they can be fixed before promotion. thanks david jencks On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: > I'm seeing one blocker issue -- all of the checksums that I have > downloaded do not match the corresponding checksums that I compute. For > instance: > > $ md5sum yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz ; cat > yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz.md5 > md5sum yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz ; cat > yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz.md5 > f9283f77a4dfbfa483a085fb073bc3f7 yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz > e849d7acbeafe1726252619e651f534c > > Until these are fixed, I'm -1 for the release. I'm ok with the vote > proceeding, if these can be fixed in place (it doesn't look like the > release artifacts need to be updated, just the checksums). > > There's one minor issue in the NOTICE file. The COPYRIGHT date has not > been updated: > > Copyright 1999-2008 The Apache Software Foundation > > Our convention has been to keep the last year up to date, upon the > release. This is not a requirement... > > --kevan > > > On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:38 PM, David Jencks wrote: > >> Please vote on yoko 1.1, yoko with osgi support. It works enough so an >> ORB and HandleDelegate can be bound in jndi. There are no >> non-classloading related code changes from previous yoko releases. >> >> Staging repo: >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-013/ >> >> Tag: >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/yoko/tags/yoko-1.1/ > >>> >> >>
Re: [VOTE] Yoko 1.1 with osgi
I don't know what happened but I see a bunch of "checksum failed" messages from maven when downloading yoko artifacts. I also downloaded some of these artifacts (without maven) and compared checksums and they do NOT match. Jarek On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2010, at 5:51 PM, David Jencks wrote: > >> Kevan, >> >> I've talked with Brian Fox and he says the checksums are recalculated when a >> staging repo is promoted. So, fixing them in the staging repo would have no >> lasting effect. >> >> Based on this would you be interested in revising your -1? > > Heh. So there's no point in validating the checksums to begin with? :) > > I'm ok assuming that the checksum issue will be fixed during the release > process. Given the fact that I'm happy with the artifacts and signature -- > here's my +1 > > --kevan > >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> On Apr 25, 2010, at 4:27 PM, David Jencks wrote: >> >>> The bad checksums seem to be because somehow maven 2.2.0 got installed on >>> my system. I have no idea why, but it's known to produce bad checksums. >>> >>> I'll try to contact e.g. brian fox to see what we can do about them. I >>> think usually what has happened in the past is to promote, then fix, but >>> maybe they can be fixed before promotion. >>> >>> thanks >>> david jencks >>> >>> On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: >>> I'm seeing one blocker issue -- all of the checksums that I have downloaded do not match the corresponding checksums that I compute. For instance: $ md5sum yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz ; cat yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz.md5 md5sum yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz ; cat yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz.md5 f9283f77a4dfbfa483a085fb073bc3f7 yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz e849d7acbeafe1726252619e651f534c Until these are fixed, I'm -1 for the release. I'm ok with the vote proceeding, if these can be fixed in place (it doesn't look like the release artifacts need to be updated, just the checksums). There's one minor issue in the NOTICE file. The COPYRIGHT date has not been updated: Copyright 1999-2008 The Apache Software Foundation Our convention has been to keep the last year up to date, upon the release. This is not a requirement... --kevan On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:38 PM, David Jencks wrote: > Please vote on yoko 1.1, yoko with osgi support. It works enough so an > ORB and HandleDelegate can be bound in jndi. There are no > non-classloading related code changes from previous yoko releases. > > Staging repo: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-013/ > > Tag: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/yoko/tags/yoko-1.1/ >>> >> > >
[RESULT] [VOTE] Yoko 1.1 with osgi
Vote passes with 4 +1 PMC votes and no other votes. Rick McGuire Donald Woods David Jencks Kevan Miller I've promoted the staging repo and Brian Fox did something to fix the checksums. thanks david jencks On Apr 22, 2010, at 7:38 PM, David Jencks wrote: > Please vote on yoko 1.1, yoko with osgi support. It works enough so an ORB > and HandleDelegate can be bound in jndi. There are no non-classloading > related code changes from previous yoko releases. > > Staging repo: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-013/ > > Tag: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/yoko/tags/yoko-1.1/ > > Vote open for 72 hours > > thanks > david jencks
Re: [VOTE] Yoko 1.1 with osgi
On Apr 26, 2010, at 5:51 PM, David Jencks wrote: > Kevan, > > I've talked with Brian Fox and he says the checksums are recalculated when a > staging repo is promoted. So, fixing them in the staging repo would have no > lasting effect. > > Based on this would you be interested in revising your -1? Heh. So there's no point in validating the checksums to begin with? :) I'm ok assuming that the checksum issue will be fixed during the release process. Given the fact that I'm happy with the artifacts and signature -- here's my +1 --kevan > > thanks > david jencks > > On Apr 25, 2010, at 4:27 PM, David Jencks wrote: > >> The bad checksums seem to be because somehow maven 2.2.0 got installed on my >> system. I have no idea why, but it's known to produce bad checksums. >> >> I'll try to contact e.g. brian fox to see what we can do about them. I >> think usually what has happened in the past is to promote, then fix, but >> maybe they can be fixed before promotion. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: >> >>> I'm seeing one blocker issue -- all of the checksums that I have downloaded >>> do not match the corresponding checksums that I compute. For instance: >>> >>> $ md5sum yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz ; cat >>> yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz.md5 >>> md5sum yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz ; cat >>> yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz.md5 >>> f9283f77a4dfbfa483a085fb073bc3f7 yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz >>> e849d7acbeafe1726252619e651f534c >>> >>> Until these are fixed, I'm -1 for the release. I'm ok with the vote >>> proceeding, if these can be fixed in place (it doesn't look like the >>> release artifacts need to be updated, just the checksums). >>> >>> There's one minor issue in the NOTICE file. The COPYRIGHT date has not been >>> updated: >>> >>> Copyright 1999-2008 The Apache Software Foundation >>> >>> Our convention has been to keep the last year up to date, upon the release. >>> This is not a requirement... >>> >>> --kevan >>> >>> >>> On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:38 PM, David Jencks wrote: >>> Please vote on yoko 1.1, yoko with osgi support. It works enough so an ORB and HandleDelegate can be bound in jndi. There are no non-classloading related code changes from previous yoko releases. Staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-013/ Tag: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/yoko/tags/yoko-1.1/ >>> >> >
Re: [VOTE] Yoko 1.1 with osgi
Kevan, I've talked with Brian Fox and he says the checksums are recalculated when a staging repo is promoted. So, fixing them in the staging repo would have no lasting effect. Based on this would you be interested in revising your -1? thanks david jencks On Apr 25, 2010, at 4:27 PM, David Jencks wrote: > The bad checksums seem to be because somehow maven 2.2.0 got installed on my > system. I have no idea why, but it's known to produce bad checksums. > > I'll try to contact e.g. brian fox to see what we can do about them. I think > usually what has happened in the past is to promote, then fix, but maybe they > can be fixed before promotion. > > thanks > david jencks > > On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: > >> I'm seeing one blocker issue -- all of the checksums that I have downloaded >> do not match the corresponding checksums that I compute. For instance: >> >> $ md5sum yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz ; cat >> yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz.md5 >> md5sum yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz ; cat >> yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz.md5 >> f9283f77a4dfbfa483a085fb073bc3f7 yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz >> e849d7acbeafe1726252619e651f534c >> >> Until these are fixed, I'm -1 for the release. I'm ok with the vote >> proceeding, if these can be fixed in place (it doesn't look like the release >> artifacts need to be updated, just the checksums). >> >> There's one minor issue in the NOTICE file. The COPYRIGHT date has not been >> updated: >> >> Copyright 1999-2008 The Apache Software Foundation >> >> Our convention has been to keep the last year up to date, upon the release. >> This is not a requirement... >> >> --kevan >> >> >> On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:38 PM, David Jencks wrote: >> >>> Please vote on yoko 1.1, yoko with osgi support. It works enough so an ORB >>> and HandleDelegate can be bound in jndi. There are no non-classloading >>> related code changes from previous yoko releases. >>> >>> Staging repo: >>> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-013/ >>> >>> Tag: >>> >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/yoko/tags/yoko-1.1/ >> >
Re: [VOTE] Yoko 1.1 with osgi
The bad checksums seem to be because somehow maven 2.2.0 got installed on my system. I have no idea why, but it's known to produce bad checksums. I'll try to contact e.g. brian fox to see what we can do about them. I think usually what has happened in the past is to promote, then fix, but maybe they can be fixed before promotion. thanks david jencks On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: > I'm seeing one blocker issue -- all of the checksums that I have downloaded > do not match the corresponding checksums that I compute. For instance: > > $ md5sum yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz ; cat > yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz.md5 > md5sum yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz ; cat yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz.md5 > f9283f77a4dfbfa483a085fb073bc3f7 yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz > e849d7acbeafe1726252619e651f534c > > Until these are fixed, I'm -1 for the release. I'm ok with the vote > proceeding, if these can be fixed in place (it doesn't look like the release > artifacts need to be updated, just the checksums). > > There's one minor issue in the NOTICE file. The COPYRIGHT date has not been > updated: > > Copyright 1999-2008 The Apache Software Foundation > > Our convention has been to keep the last year up to date, upon the release. > This is not a requirement... > > --kevan > > > On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:38 PM, David Jencks wrote: > >> Please vote on yoko 1.1, yoko with osgi support. It works enough so an ORB >> and HandleDelegate can be bound in jndi. There are no non-classloading >> related code changes from previous yoko releases. >> >> Staging repo: >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-013/ >> >> Tag: >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/yoko/tags/yoko-1.1/ >
Re: [VOTE] Yoko 1.1 with osgi
I'm seeing one blocker issue -- all of the checksums that I have downloaded do not match the corresponding checksums that I compute. For instance: $ md5sum yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz ; cat yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz.md5 md5sum yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz ; cat yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz.md5 f9283f77a4dfbfa483a085fb073bc3f7 yoko-1.1-source-release.tar.gz e849d7acbeafe1726252619e651f534c Until these are fixed, I'm -1 for the release. I'm ok with the vote proceeding, if these can be fixed in place (it doesn't look like the release artifacts need to be updated, just the checksums). There's one minor issue in the NOTICE file. The COPYRIGHT date has not been updated: Copyright 1999-2008 The Apache Software Foundation Our convention has been to keep the last year up to date, upon the release. This is not a requirement... --kevan On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:38 PM, David Jencks wrote: > Please vote on yoko 1.1, yoko with osgi support. It works enough so an ORB > and HandleDelegate can be bound in jndi. There are no non-classloading > related code changes from previous yoko releases. > > Staging repo: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-013/ > > Tag: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/yoko/tags/yoko-1.1/
Re: [VOTE] Yoko 1.1 with osgi
Um, here's my +1 david jencks On Apr 22, 2010, at 7:38 PM, David Jencks wrote: > Please vote on yoko 1.1, yoko with osgi support. It works enough so an ORB > and HandleDelegate can be bound in jndi. There are no non-classloading > related code changes from previous yoko releases. > > Staging repo: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-013/ > > Tag: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/yoko/tags/yoko-1.1/ > > Vote open for 72 hours > > thanks > david jencks
Re: [VOTE] Yoko 1.1 with osgi
+1 Looks good. -Donald On 4/22/10 10:38 PM, David Jencks wrote: > Please vote on yoko 1.1, yoko with osgi support. It works enough so an ORB > and HandleDelegate can be bound in jndi. There are no non-classloading > related code changes from previous yoko releases. > > Staging repo: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-013/ > > Tag: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/yoko/tags/yoko-1.1/ > > Vote open for 72 hours > > thanks > david jencks
Re: [VOTE] Yoko 1.1 with osgi
+1 ran RAT and IANAL and built from source. RAT is giving a some failures, but the failures are either missing copyrights in NOTICES.vm and LEGAL.vm files or in the source files that are directly generated from the idl files. I don't think either problem is serious enough to require a redo, particularly since these same issues were in the 1.0 release as well. Rick On 4/22/2010 10:38 PM, David Jencks wrote: Please vote on yoko 1.1, yoko with osgi support. It works enough so an ORB and HandleDelegate can be bound in jndi. There are no non-classloading related code changes from previous yoko releases. Staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-013/ Tag: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/yoko/tags/yoko-1.1/ Vote open for 72 hours thanks david jencks
[VOTE] Yoko 1.1 with osgi
Please vote on yoko 1.1, yoko with osgi support. It works enough so an ORB and HandleDelegate can be bound in jndi. There are no non-classloading related code changes from previous yoko releases. Staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-013/ Tag: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/yoko/tags/yoko-1.1/ Vote open for 72 hours thanks david jencks
