Thanks for clarifying Craig. Is it common for this artifact to be auto-created during the build process? Or do people simply do an SVN checkout and create a .zip manually?
Kalle, what do you guys do on Tapestry and/or Tynamo? On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Craig L Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Les, > > Official release artifacts are the sources to the shiro project. The maven > artifacts are considered optional binary releases. > > The contents of http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/shiro/trunk/ which > contains the LICENSE and NOTICE should be tar/zipped and optionally jarred. > Then each of the tar/jar files should be checksummed and signed with a > signing key using pgp, making sure the signing key is in the KEYS file. > > You should put the release artifacts somewhere that folks can evaluate them, > like in a user directory on people visible via the web, e.g. > people.apache.org/~kaosko/shiro-001. > > Craig > > On May 20, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >> Awesome! >> >> But I just thought of a question: what is/are our official release >> artifact(s)? Most people would expect a .zip so they can download >> instead of being forced to use Maven, right? We used to have a >> jsecurity .zip and a jsecurity-with-dependencies.zip previously. What >> is good practice here in the ASF/Incubator? >> >> As I understand it, we need to distribute things like the LICENSE, >> README, NOTICE files and other things as well - not just the .jar/ >> source .jar/JavaDoc .jars, right? Our build doesn't currently make >> these things, so I'm just trying to understand what is conventional >> ASF practice. >> >> - Les >> >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Kalle Korhonen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Here's the new 1.0.0-incubating staging url: >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheshiro-004/ >>> >>> Kalle >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ok, Kalle - issue has been committed to both trunk and the branch. >>>> Tossing the ball back in to your court... >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm running the new unit test now - fix looks good. I'll commit in a >>>>> minute and re-post when I've merged into the branch. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Kalle Korhonen >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Pushed the cart back to the top of the hill. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kalle >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No worries - merging is uber easy in Idea ;) Thanks for doing the >>>>>>> rollback! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Kalle Korhonen >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Les Hazlewood >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, I can fix it rather quickly I think. Can you do the rollback >>>>>>>>> while I fix it and write the test case? Also, I'm assuming I can >>>>>>>>> add >>>>>>>>> the fix to trunk? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah, I'll rollback and drop the staged release. You can fix it in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> trunk, but the fix needs to be merged to the shiro-root-0.0.x branch >>>>>>>> (hey you asked for it :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kalle >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Kalle Korhonen >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Noticed, but didn't really read through until now and I >>>>>>>>>> optimistically >>>>>>>>>> thought it was more esoteric than it seems it is. Undoubtedly it's >>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>> issue with native sessions only but that's one of the strong >>>>>>>>>> points >>>>>>>>>> for Shiro. I assume you are already looking into it? Should be >>>>>>>>>> easy to >>>>>>>>>> create a test case for it. It's a simple matter to rollback the >>>>>>>>>> release now that we've tested the process works. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kalle >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Les Hazlewood >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I'd love to! But did you see this? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-167 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> httpServletRequest.getSession().getServletContext() always >>>>>>>>>>> returning >>>>>>>>>>> null doesn't sound great. Shouldn't we fix it quickly and >>>>>>>>>>> re-try? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Kalle Korhonen >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How about that, the release worked on the first try. Guess I've >>>>>>>>>>>> learned a thing or two about releasing with Maven along the way. >>>>>>>>>>>> Props >>>>>>>>>>>> to Maven folks for super clear yet concise instructions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The staging repository is at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheshiro-002/ >>>>>>>>>>>> The Maven site/documentation is at >>>>>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/shiro/static/1.0.0-incubating. This >>>>>>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>>>>>> final location for the site. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Les, would you like to do the honors and send the official vote >>>>>>>>>>>> email >>>>>>>>>>>> out? There's a sample template at >>>>>>>>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html. >>>>>>>>>>>> Since >>>>>>>>>>>> it's our first release though maybe you want to add a bit more >>>>>>>>>>>> description and maybe mention that since there were some last >>>>>>>>>>>> minute >>>>>>>>>>>> package changes people should actually test the binaries before >>>>>>>>>>>> voting, perhaps extend the voting time from minimum 72 hours. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kalle >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Kalle Korhonen >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On that note, I think we should release 1.0.0. Current Maven >>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning scheme works "best" with x.x.x numbering (see >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://mojo.codehaus.org/versions-maven-plugin/version-rules.html). >>>>>>>>>>>>> It'd also would make sensible to then reserve the incremental >>>>>>>>>>>>> version >>>>>>>>>>>>> (the last component) for bug fixes and allow using minor >>>>>>>>>>>>> versions for >>>>>>>>>>>>> new (compatible) feature releases. In essence, after releasing >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0.0, >>>>>>>>>>>>> we'd prepare the trunk for development of 1.1.0 and create >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0.x >>>>>>>>>>>>> branch for bug fixes and continue feature development, bug >>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the trunk until we identify a feature set we don't want to >>>>>>>>>>>>> or won't >>>>>>>>>>>>> make it to the next release, at which time we'd pull a 1.1x >>>>>>>>>>>>> branch and >>>>>>>>>>>>> update the trunk for development of 1.2.x (or even 2.0.x). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kalle >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're long >>>>>>>>>>>>>> overdue for our first release ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to take >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a crack >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that, I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak-up if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what should >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concretely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finish all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise, I'll >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Les >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > > Craig L Russell > Architect, Oracle > http://db.apache.org/jdo > 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > >
