On 13 October 2013 20:43, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
Depends. It's certainly not strictly binary (or source) conpatible. But whether it is an issue depends on whether any 3rd party code is using it or not. > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
