On 10/13/13 12:39 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 10/12/13 10:31 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> Hi >> >> since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added >> read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support >> for 7z. >> >> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current >> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd >> immediately change the site after the release to include the release >> date anyway. >> >> Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here: >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/ >> (svn revision 3254) >> >> Maven artifacts are here: >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/ >> >> Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes: >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt >> >> The tag is here: >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/ >> (svn revision 1531616) >> >> Site: >> http://commons.apache.org/compress/ >> >> Clirr Report (compared to 1.5): >> http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html >> >> RAT Report: >> http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html >> >> KEYS: >> http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS >> >> Please review the release candidate and vote. >> This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530 >> GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of >> this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday. >> >> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts >> [ ] +0 OK, but... >> [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix... >> [ ] -1 I oppose this release because... > +0 > Code builds fine for me on OSX 1.7.0_21-b12 > Jar, tarball contents, notice, license look fine. > Sigs, hashes are good. > +0 instead of +1 because the title on the release notes is incorrect > - should be 1.6. > > One thing to verify: the manifest says the build was done using > 1.6.0_27. Is that recent enough to include the fix for the javadoc > XSS vulnerabilty?
I am sorry. I forgot one other thing to verify. The clirr report complains about dropping a field. Is this spurious / not really an issue? Phil > > Phil > > Phil >> Thanks! >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
