On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 7:38 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Which there is not way of knowing :( Are the dropped fields private? Gary > >> 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 > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition JUnit in Action, Second Edition Spring Batch in Action Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
