On 12 November 2017 15:21:20 GMT+00:00, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >I've not lost track. Just busy.
I know that feeling. > FWIW, I have a product at works that >depends on the bin zip file being in Maven repos through Ivy: That is reason enough for me for an RC3. I'll probably look at that early next week. I need this for the next set of Tomcat releases but there are other dependencies I need to work on too so I have a little time. That should allow time for further feedback on RC2. Mark > > <dependency org="commons-daemon" name="commons-daemon" >conf="ais.dist.acd" rev="1.0.15"> > <artifact name="commons-daemon" maven:classifier="bin-windows" >type="zip" /> > </dependency> > > >Gary > >On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 09/11/17 20:15, Mark Thomas wrote: >> >> <snip/> >> >> > The proposed release is: >> > >> > The proposed 1.1.0 release based on RC2 is: >> > [ ] Broken - do not release because... >> > [ ] Approved - go ahead and release as 1.1.0 >> >> I'm undecided. >> >> From a functional, policy and packaging point of view I don't have >any >> concerns. However, test JARs seem fairly pointless to have in Maven >> Central and there is benefit in providing the various binaries via >Maven >> Central. >> >> While I don't want to delay the release unnecessarily, I'm leaning >> towards an RC3 with a set of uploads to the Nexus staging repo that >> aligns with the 1.0.15 release. While I could probably figure out how >to >> do that manually, just re-rolling the release is probably going to be >> quicker. >> >> Thoughts? Comments? Feedback on the review below - particularly the >> website also welcome. >> >> Detailed review follows. >> >> Mark >> >> >> Java version >> ------------ >> >> The minimum Java version is 6 but Daemon can't be built with Java 6 >(the >> Maven toolchain requires Java 7). That should be OK but merits >> additional checks. >> >> Checking one of the class files in commons-daemon-1.1.0.jar it is >> version 50 as expected. >> >> >> Unit tests >> ---------- >> >> The test code isn't a unit test, it is a sample. >> >> >> Maven Central >> ------------- >> >> It doesn't do any harm uploading the test JARs to Maven Central but >I'm >> leaning towards excluding them in future. >> >> The binary and native src distributions for 1.1.0 were not uploaded >to >> Maven Central (strictly they were but were then removed before the >repo >> was closed). The 1.0.11 to 1.0.15 releases did include those >> distributions. There are benefits to having them on Maven Central so >I'm >> leaning towards including them in future. >> >> >> Integration testing >> ------------------- >> >> Windows with Tomcat 7.0.82 >> Tested by replacing the Windows binaries with those from Commons >Daemon >> 1.1.0. >> - Digital signatures are valid (Symantec code signing) >> - Passed simple smoke test running on Java 6 >> - Configuring Java 9 specific options didn't prevent running on Java >6 >> (as expected) >> - Java 9 options used when running on Java 9 (needed to remove >> endorsedDirs setting - as expected) >> >> Linux with Tomcat trunk >> - Warnings compiling jsvc (no change from 1.0.15) >> - Runs under Java 8 >> - Runs under Java 9 >> >> >> Packaging >> --------- >> >> I compared the contents of various artefacts in the 1.1.0 release >with >> the equivalent from 1.0.15: >> >> - commons-daemon-n.n.n-bin-windows.zip >> - No ia64 dir (as expected) >> - Otherwise file/dir names the same >> - Differences in files all expected >> - commons-daemon-n.n.n-bin.tar.gz >> - no apidocs/src-html directory (looks OK) >> - differences in generated Javadoc files (expected) >> - Otherwise file/dir names the same >> - Differences in files all expected >> - commons-daemon-n.n.n-native-src.tar.gz >> - CHANGES.txt removed as expected >> - Otherwise file/dir names the same >> - Differences in files all expected >> - commons-daemon-n.n.n-src.zip >> - CHANGES.txt -> changes.xml (expected) >> - Maven source layout changed slightly (expected) >> - Otherwise file/dir names the same >> - Differences in files all expected >> >> Overall I'm pleasantly surprised. With the time between releases, >> changes in the release process and my unfamiliarity with both Maven >and >> the release process I was expected some packaging issues but all >looks >> to be OK. >> >> >> Web site >> -------- >> >> Not part of the release but since I'm here... >> >> The link for "Javadoc (SVN latest)" just points to the latest >release. >> Should this point to a CI build, be removed or something else? >> >> What is the purpose of the Jira report? Do we need to add some more >fix >> versions, remove the report or something else? >> >> RAT report suggests we should add an ASF header to HOWTO-RELEASE.txt >but >> that is a minor issue I'll fix shortly. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
