On 3/29/13 8:44 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 3/29/13 3:34 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Math 3.2, based on release >> candidate 2. >> >> This version fixes numerous bugs and adds a few features. >> >> You can retrieve the various parts here: >> >> Sources, binaries and release notes: >> >> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/math/> (svn revision 1670) > Seems RELEASE_NOTES.txt has the wrong heading - does not match the > last commit to trunk, still referring to -SNAPSHOT. Also it is > missing the description and using the default cheezy format, not > what the .vm generates (which includes the description, better > format and a better footer). I guess this does not work anymore? > Looks like it did in 3.1 and 3.1.1. > > Unfortunately, the release notes title and missing description are > showstoppers for me, so -1 for the package as is.
I temporarily changed the pom version back to 3.2 and regenerated the notes from the command line passing the vm parameter and checked in a new version to trunk. Phil > > Sigs and hashes are good and release contents and build look good to me. > > Phil > > >> Maven artifacts are here: >> >> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-035/org/apache/commons/commons-math3/3.2/> >> >> Details of changes since 3.1.1 are in the release notes: >> >> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/math/RELEASE-NOTES.txt> >> >> <http://people.apache.org/~luc/commons-math-3.2-RC2-site/changes-report.html> >> >> Tag: >> >> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/tags/MATH_2_2_RC2/> > You mean 3_2 above. >> (svn revision 1462526) >> >> Site: >> >> <http://people.apache.org/~luc/commons-math-3.2-RC2-site/> >> >> >> All reports (CLIRR, RAT, findbugs ...) : >> >> <http://people.apache.org/~luc/commons-math-3.2-RC2-site/project-reports.html> >> >> Note that the PMD report shows several violations. A few of them are >> false positive (unused method, unused field). A number of them are >> voluntary (overriding method that simply calls super) because what we >> really need in these cases is to add specific javadoc in the overriding >> method. The remaining errors correspond to unused parameters. They are >> known and correspond to deprecated method that will be removed in 4.0. >> So despite the report is not perfectly clean, in fact everything that >> could be fixed in it has already been fixed. >> >> Note also that the CPD report shows *huge* duplications. This is normal >> as it correspond to complete packages that are modified. As we are >> releasing only a minor version, compatibility prevents us from removing >> the older packages. The cleanup will occur in 4.0. >> >> Votes, please. This vote will close in 72 hours: 2013-04-01T22:30:00 UTC >> >> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts >> [ ] +0 OK, but... >> [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix... >> [ ] -1 I oppose this release because... >> >> Thanks! >> >> Luc >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
