The vote passed with +1s from Greg Trasuk, Dennis Reedy, Jonathan Costers and
Peter Firmstone.
I will release the Maven artifacts immediately, but it will take me a day or
two to do the distribution website. Announcement will follow when all that is
done.
Cheers,
Greg Trasuk.
Assuming that there aren’t major incompatibilities, I think that would be a
“minor” version change according to our versioning policy, so we’d be looking
at the “2.3” branch rather than a “3.0” release.
I’m still unnerved by the massive amounts of changes to both code and tests in
the
- Original message -
>
> Assuming that there aren’t major incompatibilities, I think that would
> be a “minor” version change according to our versioning policy, so we’d
> be looking at the “2.3” branch rather than a “3.0” release.
>
> I’m still unnerved by the massive
nch rather than a “3.0” release.
>
> I’m still unnerved by the massive amounts of changes to both code and
> tests in the qa_refactor branch, as well as the apparent instability of
> the code, although that seems to be improving. In the next few weeks
> I’m going to try and setup a
I'm happy to accept whatever release version number that the committers decide
when that time comes.
I think it best to narrow our focus for now on how to proceed with the release
process.
Regards,
Peter.
- Original message -
>
> The way that services are instantiated a
essage -
>>
>> Assuming that there aren’t major incompatibilities, I think that would
>> be a “minor” version change according to our versioning policy, so we’d
>> be looking at the “2.3” branch rather than a “3.0” release.
>>
>> I’m still unnerved by the massiv
r.
> >
> > - Original message -
> > >
> > > Assuming that there aren’t major incompatibilities, I think that
> > > would be a “minor” version change according to our versioning
> > > policy, so we’d be looking at the “2.3” branch rather than a
this point I've allowed services to continue unsafe construction
> > > practices, while logging a SEVERE warning when the Commission
> > > interface isn't implemented, rather than fail.
> > >
> > > This is a fundamental change to the way services are wr
> > > enough to cause the version jump.
> > > >
> > > > At this point I've allowed services to continue unsafe construction
> > > > practices, while logging a SEVERE warning when the Commission
> > > > interface isn't implemented,
o continue unsafe construction
practices, while logging a SEVERE warning when the Commission
interface isn't implemented, rather than fail.
This is a fundamental change to the way services are written.
Regards,
Peter.
- Original message -
Assuming that there aren’t major incompatibili
t; > JSK2.0 was 2.0 because of the introduction of the proxy verification
> > > > mechanisms, as well as JERI.Absent some new client usage
> > > > mechanism, River doesn’t need to go to 3.0.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > >
jini.start” mechanism,
> > > > > your Commission interface, some other IOC container (Rio,
> > > > > Harvester, Seven or RiverContainer) or some unknown mechanism
> > > > > that starts with a static main() method.
> > > > >
> > > > > J
If the call fails, repeat the
> > > > > > lookup (and possibly discovery) til you get a proxy that works.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nowhere does the client need to know whether the service
> > > > > > instance is started up using the “com.s
> one or more of these instances to get a set of service
> > > > > > > candidates - Choose a candidate and prepare() it
> > > > > > > using a ProxyPreparer, to yield a usable service proxy.
> > > > > > > - Mak
t;>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Use multicast of unicast discovery to find one or more
>>>>>>> ServiceRegistrar instances - Call lookup(…) on one
>>>>>>> or more of these instances to get a set of service candidates
&
g a SEVERE warning when
the Commission interface isn't implemented, rather than fail.
This is a fundamental change to the way services are written.
Regards,
Peter.
- Original message -
Assuming that there aren’t major incompatibilities, I think
that would be a “minor” version change according t
unicast discovery to find one or more
> > > > > > > > ServiceRegistrar instances - Call
> > > > > > > > lookup(…)
> > > > > > > > on one or more of these instances to get a set of service
> > > &g
Hello all:
Please review and vote on the release of Apache River Examples v1.0
The staging repository is at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheriver-1001
<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheriver-1001>
And the source release ‘z
orted for release 3.0?
>
> It would simplify testing if we only support JDK 8.
>
> Because of changes such as the package renaming, I expect users to need to do
> their own development and testing to use the new release, so I don't see much
> additional burden in switc
On 11/08/2015 8:33 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
Which Java version(s) should be supported for release 3.0?
It would simplify testing if we only support JDK 8.
Because of changes such as the package renaming, I expect users to
need to do their own development and testing to use the new release
Shanahan wrote:
Which Java version(s) should be supported for release 3.0?
It would simplify testing if we only support JDK 8.
Because of changes such as the package renaming, I expect users to
need to do their own development and testing to use the new release,
so I don't see much additional b
, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> I think the next thing we need to do to make Release 3.0 a reality is to
> merge it into the trunk.
>
> If you agree, I would like opinions on the best way to go about it.
> Ideally, we will preserve revision history for modules
just did releases from branches after that.
>
> What kind of support does Apache offer for switching to git? That might be
> easier.
>
> Thanks,
> Bryan
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>
>> I think the next thing we need to do to make Releas
For moving to Git, see http://www.apache.org/dev/writable-git
Is the support provided sufficient? How do committers in general feel
about moving River to Git? If it is a good idea, should we do it before
Release 3.0? The alternative might be to rename the current SVN branch
and release from
+1 on moving to git.
+1 on doing this before a 3.0 release if we want to maintain history from
the trunk.
Bryan Thompson
Chief Scientist & Founder
SYSTAP, LLC
4501 Tower Road
Greensboro, NC 27410
br...@systap.com
http://blazegraph.com
http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata.co
, JERI, etc into their own repositories/deliverables? Should we have
a set of repositories that reflect our release engineering processes? i.e. a
development repo, QA repo, release repo, etc?
Simply “switching to git” and then having one big canonical git repository that
we use exactly the
One concern I have with moving to Git before Release 3.0 is the tension
between really thinking through the Git move and getting 3.0 out quickly.
On 9/22/2015 7:23 AM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
Apache’s Git support is just fine, and includes the ability to accept
pull requests from Github, in a way
amespace/trunk” to “jtsk/trunk” and release from
> there. That’s the path of least bikeshedding.
>
In agreement with you Greg. I’m all for moving to Git, and as you point out
there are questions involved with doing that. Lets not get distracted (love the
bikeshedding comment!). FWIW, w
Just to be clear, I agree with Pat here - stay with svn for the initial 3.0
release. If someone’s up for the challenge, try to merge qa-refactor-namespace
into trunk. Alternately, just go ahead and replace trunk with
qa-refactor-namespace, as I described below.
Greg Trasuk
> On Sep 22, 2
g as we're about to change the package of ServiceProxyAccessor in the 3.0
release, it would have less impact on downstream code if this change was only
made once.
If the security and performance improvements were not accepted, (I'm quite
confident that we will agree on a solution once
+1 from me.
Greg Trasuk
> On Feb 8, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>
> Hello all:
>
> River 2.2.3 is the latest release of the Apache River Jini Technology Starter
> Kit. It is a maintenance release that removes the Activation subsystem and
> JRMP support.
>
am
To: dev@river.apache.org
Cc: u...@river.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] Release Apache River 2.2.3
+1 from me.
Greg Trasuk
> On Feb 8, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>
> Hello all:
>
> River 2.2.3 is the latest release of the Apache River Jini Technology Sta
As its just a maintenance release, 7 days seems a little long. Let’s just
leave it at ‘at least til Thurs’ and we can leave it open as long as it takes
to get 3 ‘+1’s. I think it would make sense to finish off this vote before we
open the voting on ‘3.0’, but that’s up to whoever is acting as
> On Feb 8, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>
> Hello all:
>
> River 2.2.3 is the latest release of the Apache River Jini Technology Starter
> Kit. It is a maintenance release that removes the Activation subsystem and
> JRMP support.
>
> The release artif
Hello all:
Release candidate artifacts can be found at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/river/
Binary release artifacts are staged in
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheriver-1003/
The vote will remain open for at least 72 hours (Ending no sooner than 2100UTC
+1 and great news for River communities.RegardsBishnu
Bishnu Prasad Gautam
> Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 11:18:21 +1000
> From: j...@zeus.net.au
> To: dev@river.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache River 3.0.0
>
> River 3.0.0 is the latest release of Apache River.
>
&g
+1: I vote in favor of this release.
(binding)
Great job!
Bryan
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Peter wrote:
> River 3.0.0 is the latest release of Apache River.
>
> The release artifacts and signatures for the release candidate are
> available at:
> https://dist.apache.org
+1 Binding.
On 9/2/2016 6:18 PM, Peter wrote:
River 3.0.0 is the latest release of Apache River.
The release artifacts and signatures for the release candidate are
available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/river/
[ ] +1: I vote in favour of this release.
[ ] +0: I am not against
Thanks Patricia.
+1 Peter.
That's 3 binding pmc votes!
Sent from my Samsung device.
Include original message
Original message
From: Patricia Shanahan
Sent: 21/09/2016 10:34:46 am
To: dev@river.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache River 3.0.0
+1 Binding.
On 9/2/2
Results:
3 binding votes
1 non binding
None against.
The artifacts have been published, we need to wait 24 hours before announcing.
Regards,
Peter.
Sent from my Samsung device.
Excellent. A great step.
Bryan
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016, Peter Firmstone
wrote:
> Results:
>
> 3 binding votes
> 1 non binding
>
> None against.
>
> The artifacts have been published, we need to wait 24 hours before
> announcing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter.
>
> Sent from my Samsung device.
>
>
The question is of course where to next?
As people are aware I've been working on addressing security issues and
how to make River better and more secure. I've been working on this
outside the project because my attempts to discuss it caused heated
arguments. I figured that if I could demons
: dev@river.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache River 3.0.0
The question is of course where to next?
As people are aware I've been working on addressing security issues and
how to make River better and more secure. I've been working on this
outside the project because my attempts to di
Exciting! I will try and dig out a bit and download the candidate release.
Bryan
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Peter wrote:
> River 3.0.1 is the latest release of Apache River.
>
> The release artifacts and signatures for the release candidate are
> available at:
> https://
On 5/19/2011 12:32 PM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
Me again. I've decided to start a vote (you can always vote against!)
that we should do a release. I think that there's enough good stuff
already in the code base that our users aren't seeing specifically
because we've not released it
Hi,
Is this a vote to have a vote on a release? ;-)
Anyway, releases are always good, go for it! +1
BR,
Jukka Zitting
On 5/19/2011 3:31 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
Is this a vote to have a vote on a release? ;-)
I interpreted it as a vote on a release, specifically "Release River
from current trunk".
Patricia
Hi,
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 5/19/2011 3:31 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Is this a vote to have a vote on a release? ;-)
>
> I interpreted it as a vote on a release, specifically "Release River from
> current trunk".
A release v
On 5/19/2011 6:29 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
On 5/19/2011 3:31 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Is this a vote to have a vote on a release? ;-)
I interpreted it as a vote on a release, specifically "Release River from
current trunk&
Thu, 19 May 2011 20:32:20 +0100 -n
Tom Hobbs írta:
> Me again. I've decided to start a vote (you can always vote against!)
> that we should do a release. I think that there's enough good stuff
> already in the code base that our users aren't seeing specifically
> be
+1
On 19 May 2011 23:20, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 5/19/2011 12:32 PM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
>>
>> Me again. I've decided to start a vote (you can always vote against!)
>> that we should do a release. I think that there's enough good stuff
>> already i
l@?
Peter, do you have any release instructions?
On 20 May 2011 06:33, "Dan Creswell" wrote:
+1
On 19 May 2011 23:20, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 5/19/2011 12:32 PM, Tom Hobbs wr...
On 19-05-11 21:32, Tom Hobbs wrote:
Me again. I've decided to start a vote (you can always vote against!)
that we should do a release. I think that there's enough good stuff
already in the code base that our users aren't seeing specifically
because we've not released it
Hi,
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
> Thinking about it, does this vote thread need to be on general@?
River is a standalone TLP now, so no need to involve the Incubator anymore.
> Peter, do you have any release instructions?
A good example to follow is Peter's r
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Is this a vote to have a vote on a release? ;-)
Funny, isn't it?
Anyway, releases are always good, go for it! +1
Just remember, this is NOT a release vote. After the release artifacts
are pro
ing
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Is this a vote to have a vote on a release? ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Funny, isn't it?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, releases are always good, go for it! +1
>>>
>>
>> Just remember, this
Attachments don't come through the mailing list. Could you upload it
somewhere, and post the link?
Patricia
On 5/22/2011 11:35 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
...
I've attached the report, does anyone have any idea what I'm supposed
to do with them?
...
On 5/21/2011 4:21 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
...
4. Have all committers add their signatures to the Keys file.
...
Do I need to get into the Apache web of trust? If so, any suggestions
for how to do it? I live in San Diego, but will be in London for a
couple of weeks later in the year.
Patr
Whoops. If I was even half awake, I'd know that.
Try this;
http://people.apache.org/~thobbs/river/rat.report
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 5/21/2011 4:21 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
> ...
>>
>> 4. Have all committers add their signatures to the Keys file.
>
> .
x27;t appear to be a problem with the release.
Peter.
s from the directory tree?
Cheers,
Tom
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Jukka Zitting
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Is this a vote to have a vote on a release? ;-)
>>>
icia
>>
>
> To get into the Apache web of trust, you'll need to attend one of the Apache
> Developer events like ApacheCon and take your key along on a usb stick. I'm
> a long way from any events, so it hasn't been practical for me to join it,
> but that didn't
On 27-05-11 12:46, Tom Hobbs wrote:
A couple of (hopefully) quick newbie questions.
1) How do you create the build digests?
Wasn't this: 'ant release' ? I'm not clear on what a digest is in this
context.
Gr. Sim
--
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http:
t; 1) How do you create the build digests?
>
> Wasn't this: 'ant release' ? I'm not clear on what a digest is in this
> context.
>
> Gr. Sim
>
> --
> QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
the sidenav
to the release procedure document. Its not finished at all, but
something is better then nothing.
Gr. Sim
--
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
automated procedure. Less things to remember. :)
>
> A problem? don't know. I've added a link to documentation in the sidenav
> to the release procedure document. Its not finished at all, but
> something is better then nothing.
>
> Gr. Sim
>
> --
> QCG, Softwar
On 01-06-11 12:59, Tom Hobbs wrote:
I've kept a track of what I did, so. Can hopefully fill in the blanks for
you - when I remember how to update the website!
cms.apache.org contains the instructions i think.
Gr. Sim
--
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
Quality Consu
Did anyone see an infra response to this that I missed? I'm still
seeing the same problem with our 2.2.0 release.
Anyone know how I'm supposed to get the thing out there?
Please help.
Tom
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
> Hi Infra,
>
> I've been
No I didn't see a response, from memory an old release is moved to the
archive site, I think moved 2.1.1 to the archive site.
Can you ssh into the server? You might need to cd .. till you get to
the right directory.
Tom Hobbs wrote:
Did anyone see an infra response to this that I m
I've been on people.a.o and the correct release dir exists in /www/
www.Apache.org/Dist/river
but using a web browser to get to www.a.o/Dist/river just 404s.
Infra@ please can you assist?
Thanks,
Tom
Grammar and spelling have been sacrificed on the altar of messaging via
mobile device
On 19/07/2011 09:20, Tom Hobbs wrote:
> I've been on people.a.o and the correct release dir exists in
> /www/www.Apache.org/Dist/river <http://www.Apache.org/Dist/river>
>
> but using a web browser to get to www.a.o/Dist/river just 404s.
>
> Infra@ please can you
ch. I modified Levels
(attached on my reply), rebuilt and everything seems to load successfully.
Without this fix I have a complete show stopper for some of my installations.
I'd like to request that this gets fixed ASAP and a new release produced.
Thanks
Dennis
/*
* Licensed to the Apach
hout using the
> ClassReplacingObjectOutputStream and the LevelData approach. I modified
> Levels (attached on my reply), rebuilt and everything seems to load
> successfully. Without this fix I have a complete show stopper for some of my
> installations.
>
> I'd like to request that t
opper
>> for some of my installations.
>>
>> I'd like to request that this gets fixed ASAP and a new release produced.
>>
>
> Any committers on the list? Oh wait, aren't you one, Dennis :-)
Smart alec :)
>
> Actually, could you open a Jira t
On Feb 5, 2013, at 218PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>
>
> Actually, could you open a Jira ticket for this and attach your patch?
> I suspect that since it's a core library, we might be best to "Review
> then commit" on this one. I agree that a quick release is in orde
gt; > then commit" on this one. I agree that a quick release is in order.
> > Perhaps we should branch from the last stable release and patch/release
> > that? Opinions anyone?
>
> I have a real production issue with this, so I'll go ahead and branch. What
> is t
On 6/02/2013 11:49 PM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
On Feb 5, 2013, at 218PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
Actually, could you open a Jira ticket for this and attach your patch?
I suspect that since it's a core library, we might be best to "Review
then commit" on this one. I agree that a quic
core library, we might be best to "Review
>>> then commit" on this one. I agree that a quick release is in order.
>>> Perhaps we should branch from the last stable release and patch/release
>>> that? Opinions anyone?
>> I have a real production issue
g the ClassReplacingObjectOutputStream and the LevelData
approach. I modified Levels (attached on my reply), rebuilt and
everything seems to load successfully. Without this fix I have a
complete show stopper for some of my installations.
I'd like to request that this gets fixed ASAP and a new release
produced.
cessfully. Without this fix I have a
>> complete show stopper for some of my installations.
>>
>> I'd like to request that this gets fixed ASAP and a new release
>> produced.
>>
>
> The reason for code is not some sort of code fetish I believ
Hi Dennis,
On 2/10/13 10:39 PM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
A few thoughts here:
1. Configuring custom levels is done by configuring the custom
level'sinteger level value (this can be done for all levels, not just custom
levels). For example, taking a look at the
examples.hello/config/logging.prop
On Feb 10, 2013, at 801PM, Mark Brouwer wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
> On 2/10/13 10:39 PM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
>>
>>
>> A few thoughts here:
>>
>
>> 1. Configuring custom levels is done by configuring the custom
>> level'sinteger level value (this can be done for all levels, not just custom
>> lev
Hi Dennis,
BTW I'm glad you reported this issue, because I used these logging
classes from the starter kit in many non Jini projects too and these
are
all likely to blow up soon if people install the latest Java SE, which
I'm
not that happy with.
On 2/11/13 2:20 AM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
Eve
ow stopper for some of my installations.
>>
>> I'd like to request that this gets fixed ASAP and a new release
>> produced.
>>
>
> The reason for code is not some sort of code fetish I believe, it allows for
> the creation of a pure instance
g the ClassReplacingObjectOutputStream and the LevelData
> >> approach. I modified Levels (attached on my reply), rebuilt and
> >> everything seems to load successfully. Without this fix I have a
> >> complete show stopper for some of my installations.
> >>
> >&
Hi Dennis,
As I had some time to fix my own code as result of the change in the
serialized form of j.u.l.Level I had to look a bit better what has been
going on with j.u.l.Level and how to solve it. As a result I implemented
a more robust solution than that currently in trunk, more about that
On Mar 12, 2013, at 1233PM, Mark Brouwer wrote:
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-416 contains a patch against the
> trunk that could be applied, as well as the complete source code. My
> j.u.l.Levels implementation was based on the initial submission from Sun to
> Apache so i
Mark,
Apologies for leaving an answer to your question below blank, I didn't catch it
until now.
> Do you have a bug id for http://bugs.sun.com/ for this issue, because to
> prevent from duplicate reports I tried to search it. But that search function
> in Sun/Oracle bug database is severely b
As per comments received, I have committed changes to the release notes
and am in the process of rolling a new release candidate. Hence this
vote is cancelled. Sorry about that - I'm new at releasing River. Stay
tuned, though.
Greg Trasuk.
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 14:24, Greg Trasuk
Successful Jenkins build here, by the way...
https://builds.apache.org/job/river-2.2-qa-jdk7/6/
Cheers,
Greg.
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 12:00, Greg Trasuk wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> Please vote on this release. If necessary I'll hold the vote open until
> we get suffuient response,
+1
On May 1, 2013, at 1200PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> Please vote on this release. If necessary I'll hold the vote open until
> we get suffuient response, but I'd prefer to get it closed off. At the
> present time, we have only seen 1 vot
+1 Peter.
- Original message -
> +1
>
> On May 1, 2013, at 1200PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>
> > Hi all:
> >
> > Please vote on this release. If necessary I'll hold the vote open until
> > we get suffuient response, but I'd prefer to get it clos
+1 (non-binding)
On 05/01/2013 04:55 PM, dev-digest-h...@river.apache.org wrote:
Subject:
Re: [Reminder] [Vote] Release Apache River 2.2.1]
From:
Dennis Reedy
Date:
05/01/2013 12:08 PM
To:
dev@river.apache.org
+1
On May 1, 2013, at 1200PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>Hi all:
>
>Pleas
Greg,
Awesome and thank you so much for being he release manager and moving it
through. Lets please get the release published as artifacts to Maven central.
Regards
Dennis
On May 4, 2013, at 823PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
> Binding:
>
> Peter Firmstone +1
> Simon IJskes +0
Hi all:
The staging repository below contains the Maven artifacts based on the
Apache River 2.2.1 release that was approved on May 3. Please review
and vote for or against promoting these artifacts to released status,
which will be published to Central.
Cheers,
Greg.
[ ] +1 : I approve this
The vote has carried.
+1's from Dennis, Greg and Peter.
+0 from Sim
Greg.
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 21:17, Greg Trasuk wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> The staging repository below contains the Maven artifacts based on the
> Apache River 2.2.1 release that was approved on May 3. Please revi
ed the fixes
> for both issues, and I'd like to propose a release of the 2.2 branch to
> get these fixes out.
>
> Anyone have an issue with a maintenance release of the 2.2 branch?
No objections, probably a good idea.
>
> After that, I think we need to revisit the trunk
+1. I vote to release this artifact.
On Friday, August 7, 2015, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>
> Hello all:
>
> Please review and vote on the release of Apache River Examples v1.0
>
> The staging repository is at:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapach
+1 (binding) from me.
Greg Trasuk
> On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>
>
> Hello all:
>
> Please review and vote on the release of Apache River Examples v1.0
>
> The staging repository is at:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/or
+1 (binding)
On 8/7/2015 12:58 PM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
Hello all:
Please review and vote on the release of Apache River Examples v1.0
The staging repository is at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheriver-1001
<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositor
301 - 400 of 514 matches
Mail list logo
