-- Olivier On Oct 14, 2013 6:39 AM, "Phil Steitz" <phil.ste...@gmail.com> 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?
Last maven javadoc plugin fix that without jdk requirement > > 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 >
