Phil Steitz a écrit : > sebb wrote: >> On 26/03/2010, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Tag: >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_2_1_RC2/ >> Some files were missing SVN:EOL (applied to trunk) >> > Good catch. Lets all make sure we have our svn clients configured > to add these > (http://www.apache.org/dev/version-control.html#https-svn-config) >> 1 missing AL header (applied to trunk). > > Yikes! Sorry I missed that. >> Notice was still 2009 - fixed in trunk. >> > Thanks for fixing this. > >>> Distributions: >>> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/math-2.1-RC2/ >> No SHA1 hashes, seems odd as the Mvn dist has them. >> (Not a blocker, can be added later) > > We only link and mirror the md5s on dist/, so I see no reason to > include sha1 hashes for the official release tars/zips. >> Builds and tests OK on 1.5 and 1.6; I got one failure in one of the >> runs of RandomDataTest but that is just my luck! >> >>> Maven artifacts: >>> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/math-2.1-RC2/maven/ >> However these do have both SHA1 and MD5 hashes. >> >>> Documentation bundled with the binary distribution: >>> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/math-2.1-RC2/docs/ >> Looks good. >> >>> Output of maven:site run against the source distribution: >>> http://people.apache.org/~psteitz/math-2.1-RC2/site/ >> Not a blocker, but it's confusing to have the Javadocs for the >> previous releases near the top, and the Javadocs for 2.1 buried low >> down. >> >> If possible, I would put the old docs under a separate heading much >> further down. > > I don't care much about this. If others agree, we can rearrange. > Users may be used to the current setup though and annoyed by the change. >> Also, does it make sense to publish the RAT report? >> Surely that is mainly (only) needed for release checking? > > I agree; but to get rid of it we have to open up the argument of > what reports belong in the commons-parent pom. Personally, I would > get rid of all of them (precisely for this reason - you can't get > rid of anything included there); but I understand the other viewpoint. >>> Votes, please. This vote will close in 72 hours, 0200 GMT 29-March 2010 >>> >>> >>> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts >>> [ ] +0 OK, but... >>> [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix... >> -0 - missing AL header and Notice year. >> >> Might also be an idea to remove the mantissa and experimental >> directory trees from the SVN tag, as they don't form part of the >> release? > > Crap. Forgot to do that. Will omit from the RC3 tag. >> Better yet, can we move them out of trunk, e.g. into a branch (or the >> bit bucket?) > > Moving to branches would be a good idea, IMO. What do others think?
Yes, a branch seems a good choice in case we want to import something later. Luc > > Thanks for the review. > > Phil >>> [ ] -1 I oppose this release because... >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> P.S.: I would appreciate it if an OSGi expert could review the >>> generated material in the jar manifest and assure us that we will >>> not get complaints on its suitability. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
