Rahul Akolkar wrote:
Thanks Phil, comments below.
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip/>
Looks good. Checked only m2 build, using jdk 1.5.0_16. Jar contents, etc
look fine. If you do end up cutting another RC, it would be nice to include
miniumum required JDK level somewhere (could not find that on the site).
Looks like the jar was built with 1.4.
<snap/>
Yup, thats also the minimum since the first release. You're right
theres nothing on the site, but the (binary) jar manifest does have
these properties:
X-Compile-Source-JDK: 1.4
X-Compile-Target-JDK: 1.4
FWIW, I don't like us publishing RCs with "final" names, even just on
people.a.o. I am willing to retest "final" bits when the release vote is
called. Apologies if I missed the discussion on this.
<snip/>
Nothing beyond our last thread on this topic:
http://markmail.org/message/3emjaadwpf7cr5q3
Your comments about not having final names in RCs when asking for
functional testing and feedback from the community make good sense to
me. TBH, I wasn't really anticipating that kind of feedback and
testing. In fact, I see very little beyond packaging and static
analysis checks for many of the RCs these days (what we do about it is
best a separate thread -- and for some "broad shallow API" components
those checks may actually be sufficient).
Since we want to vote on the actual artifacts, these must be on p.a.o
atleast for the duration of the vote. This thread is merely a
precursor to the vote in my mind (barring blocking packaging mistakes
and the like).
Got it. Not a problem in this case, but probably best to use the RC
naming unless we are pretty confident we are going to release the RC bits.
Phil
-Rahul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
