Re: [VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only [X] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits [ ] +0 [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released -Rahul
Re: [VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
Wendy, "should be addressed before the release" can include documentation, i.e. a note in the release notes, on the web page, in the Wiki... I suspect the root cause is in the root pom.xml http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/shale/framework/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup Yes, using are the workaround that I am using. Paul Spencer Wendy Smoak wrote: On 8/23/06, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As a developer that is starting to use Shale via Maven, issue SHALE-258[1] is very frustrating and should be addressed before the release. I think I know why it's happening, but I'm fairly sure that issue was opened after 1.0.3 was tagged and built. It's on my list to take a look at. There are other issues with Maven's dependency management that we need to work around, for example we're getting the wrong jars in WEB-INF/lib in the example apps. Sorry about this, but using is the best available advice for now.
Re: [VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
On 8/23/06, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As a developer that is starting to use Shale via Maven, issue SHALE-258[1] is very frustrating and should be addressed before the release. I think I know why it's happening, but I'm fairly sure that issue was opened after 1.0.3 was tagged and built. It's on my list to take a look at. There are other issues with Maven's dependency management that we need to work around, for example we're getting the wrong jars in WEB-INF/lib in the example apps. Sorry about this, but using is the best available advice for now. -- Wendy
Re: [VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
As a developer that is starting to use Shale via Maven, issue SHALE-258[1] is very frustrating and should be addressed before the release. The undisclosed inclusion of MyFaces 1.1.1 using Maven cause strange and unexpected behavior. Thus resulting in very frustrate the user/community. [1] http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-258?page=all Paul Spencer
Re: [VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
+1 david 2006/8/22, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: +1 On 8/21/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 (Binding) > > On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files > > have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing > > key. They correspond to revision 433108 in the SVN repository, which I'm > > about to tag as APACHE_SHALE_1_0_3. > > > > > > (1) Maven Snapshot Repository At Apache: > > > > (http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository) > > > > org.apache.shale.extras:mailreader-jpa:1.0.3 > > org.apache.shale:shale-apps-parent:1.0.3 > > org.apache.shale:shale-clay:1.0.3 > > org.apache.shale:shale-core:1.0.3 > > org.apache.shale:shale-dist:1.0.3 > > org.apache.shale:shale-parent:1.0.3 > > org.apache.shale:shale-remoting:1.0.3 > > org.apache.shale:shale-spring:1.0.3 > > org.apache.shale:shale-test:1.0.3 > > org.apache.shale:shale-tiger:1.0.3 > > org.apache.shale:shale-tiles:1.0.3 > > > > (If you have tested previous test builds of 1.0.3, you'll need to clear > > your local m2 repository to pick up these bits) > > > > (2) Release Artifacts > > > > (http://people.apache.org/~craigmcc/shale-proposed-release-1.0.3/) > > > > mailreader-jpa-1.0.3.zip > > shale-blank-1.0.3.zip > > shale-clay-usecases-1.0.3.zip > > shale-framework-1.0.3.zip > > shale-mailreader-1.0.3.zip > > shale-mailreader-jpa-1.0.3.zip > > shale-sql-browser-1.0.3.zip > > shale-usecases-1.0.3.zip > > > > (3) Vote > > > > Please review these artifacts, and test their signatures, then vote on > > whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.3. If it passes > > we'll hold a quality vote later on. > > > > [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only > > [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits > > [ ] +0 > > [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released > > > > My vote is > > > > +1 (Binding) > > > > Craig McClanahan > > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: [VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
+1 On 8/21/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 (Binding) On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files > have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing > key. They correspond to revision 433108 in the SVN repository, which I'm > about to tag as APACHE_SHALE_1_0_3. > > > (1) Maven Snapshot Repository At Apache: > > (http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository) > > org.apache.shale.extras:mailreader-jpa:1.0.3 > org.apache.shale:shale-apps-parent:1.0.3 > org.apache.shale:shale-clay:1.0.3 > org.apache.shale:shale-core:1.0.3 > org.apache.shale:shale-dist:1.0.3 > org.apache.shale:shale-parent:1.0.3 > org.apache.shale:shale-remoting:1.0.3 > org.apache.shale:shale-spring:1.0.3 > org.apache.shale:shale-test:1.0.3 > org.apache.shale:shale-tiger:1.0.3 > org.apache.shale:shale-tiles:1.0.3 > > (If you have tested previous test builds of 1.0.3, you'll need to clear > your local m2 repository to pick up these bits) > > (2) Release Artifacts > > (http://people.apache.org/~craigmcc/shale-proposed-release-1.0.3/) > > mailreader-jpa-1.0.3.zip > shale-blank-1.0.3.zip > shale-clay-usecases-1.0.3.zip > shale-framework-1.0.3.zip > shale-mailreader-1.0.3.zip > shale-mailreader-jpa-1.0.3.zip > shale-sql-browser-1.0.3.zip > shale-usecases-1.0.3.zip > > (3) Vote > > Please review these artifacts, and test their signatures, then vote on > whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.3. If it passes > we'll hold a quality vote later on. > > [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only > [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released > > My vote is > > +1 (Binding) > > Craig McClanahan > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: [VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
>From: "Craig McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > (3) Vote > > Please review these artifacts, and test their signatures, then vote on > whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.3. If it passes > we'll hold a quality vote later on. > > [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only > [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits > [ ] +0 > [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released > It looks like there is a bug in the shale-mailreader on the edit profile page. The delete and edit buttons are not working for the hosts grid. Might be a bad navigation rule. I'll try to check that out but that is not a reflection of the libraries. +1 Gary > My vote is > > +1 (Binding) > > Craig McClanahan
Re: [VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
+1 (Binding) On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing key. They correspond to revision 433108 in the SVN repository, which I'm about to tag as APACHE_SHALE_1_0_3. (1) Maven Snapshot Repository At Apache: (http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository) org.apache.shale.extras:mailreader-jpa:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-apps-parent:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-clay:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-core:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-dist:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-parent:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-remoting:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-spring:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-test:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-tiger:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-tiles:1.0.3 (If you have tested previous test builds of 1.0.3, you'll need to clear your local m2 repository to pick up these bits) (2) Release Artifacts (http://people.apache.org/~craigmcc/shale-proposed-release-1.0.3/) mailreader-jpa-1.0.3.zip shale-blank-1.0.3.zip shale-clay-usecases-1.0.3.zip shale-framework-1.0.3.zip shale-mailreader-1.0.3.zip shale-mailreader-jpa-1.0.3.zip shale-sql-browser-1.0.3.zip shale-usecases-1.0.3.zip (3) Vote Please review these artifacts, and test their signatures, then vote on whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.3. If it passes we'll hold a quality vote later on. [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits [ ] +0 [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released My vote is +1 (Binding) Craig McClanahan
Re: [VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
On 8/20/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm ... on the stuff in the repository, Maven's "deploy" command is > calculating and setting up the md5 and sha1 signatures without the > filenames. I copied that style on the release artifacts by manually > chopping the filenames off to match (32 byte files for md5 and 40 byte files > for sha1). I've been comparing signatures by inspection. I don't know why Maven does it that way, except that whatever library it's using internally might need that format. Not being able to use -c to check just makes it harder to script, no big deal. I just noticed that shale-blank includes two versions of both commons-logging and commons-validator. Want to fix it and re-do the signatures? It doesn't happen if I build it from source. DId you build from the top level (framework) directory, or from the individual app directory? (I did the latter as a side effect of executing the individual assembly:assembly operations). I suspect that, courtesy of MNG-1577 the dependency resolution can be quite different between the two cases :-(. Since the app actually runs, I don't want to delay things any longer by trying to deal with this ... it's going to take some focused attention to our POMs to make them resilient to this. Craig (The other example apps are using commons-logging 1.0.4.) In any case, the framework distribution looks fine, (and I assume this can't be GA due to the snapshot dependencies,) so: +1 (binding) -- Wendy
Re: [VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hmm ... on the stuff in the repository, Maven's "deploy" command is calculating and setting up the md5 and sha1 signatures without the filenames. I copied that style on the release artifacts by manually chopping the filenames off to match (32 byte files for md5 and 40 byte files for sha1). I've been comparing signatures by inspection. I don't know why Maven does it that way, except that whatever library it's using internally might need that format. Not being able to use -c to check just makes it harder to script, no big deal. I just noticed that shale-blank includes two versions of both commons-logging and commons-validator. Want to fix it and re-do the signatures? It doesn't happen if I build it from source. (The other example apps are using commons-logging 1.0.4.) In any case, the framework distribution looks fine, (and I assume this can't be GA due to the snapshot dependencies,) so: +1 (binding) -- Wendy
Re: [VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
On 8/20/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files > have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing > key. ... The PGP signatures are good, but the .md5 and .sha1 checksums do not include '*filename', so I get: $ md5sum -c shale-framework-1.0.3.zip md5sum: shale-framework-1.0.3.zip: no properly formatted MD5 checksum lines found Hmm ... on the stuff in the repository, Maven's "deploy" command is calculating and setting up the md5 and sha1 signatures without the filenames. I copied that style on the release artifacts by manually chopping the filenames off to match (32 byte files for md5 and 40 byte files for sha1). I've been comparing signatures by inspection. Craig Thanks, -- Wendy
Re: [VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
On 8/20/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing key. ... The PGP signatures are good, but the .md5 and .sha1 checksums do not include '*filename', so I get: $ md5sum -c shale-framework-1.0.3.zip md5sum: shale-framework-1.0.3.zip: no properly formatted MD5 checksum lines found Thanks, -- Wendy
[VOTE] Shale Version 1.0.3 Release
At long last :-), the bits are ready for a vote. All of the following files have md5 and sha1 checksums, and are in addition signed by my code signing key. They correspond to revision 433108 in the SVN repository, which I'm about to tag as APACHE_SHALE_1_0_3. (1) Maven Snapshot Repository At Apache: (http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository) org.apache.shale.extras:mailreader-jpa:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-apps-parent:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-clay:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-core:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-dist:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-parent:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-remoting:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-spring:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-test:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-tiger:1.0.3 org.apache.shale:shale-tiles:1.0.3 (If you have tested previous test builds of 1.0.3, you'll need to clear your local m2 repository to pick up these bits) (2) Release Artifacts (http://people.apache.org/~craigmcc/shale-proposed-release-1.0.3/) mailreader-jpa-1.0.3.zip shale-blank-1.0.3.zip shale-clay-usecases-1.0.3.zip shale-framework-1.0.3.zip shale-mailreader-1.0.3.zip shale-mailreader-jpa-1.0.3.zip shale-sql-browser-1.0.3.zip shale-usecases-1.0.3.zip (3) Vote Please review these artifacts, and test their signatures, then vote on whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.3. If it passes we'll hold a quality vote later on. [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits [ ] +0 [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released My vote is +1 (Binding) Craig McClanahan
