Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

I've not looked at the release in any detail, just checked the sigs. +1 assuming the main KEYS file gets updated before the RC is posted. S/// On 27/09/2007, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > committers/tools/releases. Another of Henri's little toys. > > So are you giving +1 for this RC

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

committers/tools/releases. Another of Henri's little toys. So are you giving +1 for this RC or are there other concerns? On 9/27/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ah, OK. > > BTW, where/what is this verify_sigs tool? > > > On 27/09/2007, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It wasn't

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Ah, OK. BTW, where/what is this verify_sigs tool? On 27/09/2007, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It wasn't verify_sigs fault; I just uploaded the wrong file. When I ran it > on the files I downloaded from RC2/, it complained correctly. > > On 9/26/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

It wasn't verify_sigs fault; I just uploaded the wrong file. When I ran it on the files I downloaded from RC2/, it complained correctly. On 9/26/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All the MD5 and ASC files check out OK now. > > Why did verify_sigs not complain before? > If it's faulty, it nee

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

All the MD5 and ASC files check out OK now. Why did verify_sigs not complain before? If it's faulty, it needs to be fixed - or abandoned as a check. S. On 26/09/2007, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Turns out those assemblies had an outdated POM in them. I've rebuilt them > with the pom

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Turns out those assemblies had an outdated POM in them. I've rebuilt them with the pom tagged as RC2. Since there were no other changes, I replaced the broken ones in my RC2/ directory with the new ones. Can you please recheck? On 9/25/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, I've now got your

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

OK, I've now got your key. However, the following sigs don't work for me: commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.zip.asc commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.tar.gz.asc commons-email-1.1-RC2.jar.asc Same files that have the MD5 problems. S/// On 25/09/2007, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My key is in tru

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Ben Speakmon wrote: New source and javadoc jars have been uploaded, tag has been reapplied, and signatures rechecked. Votes again welcome :) The source jar now contains LICENSE/NOTICE twice, but that's no problem IMO. You have my +1. Oliver On 9/24/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

My key is in trunks-proper ( http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/trunks-proper/) but it hasn't been copied to the main KEYS file yet. I'll double-check the MD5s. verify_sigs swore they were correct :) On 9/25/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, I can't find the signing key - it does

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Also, I can't find the signing key - it does not seem to be in http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS but perhaps it is elsewhere? On 25/09/2007, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Some of the MD5s don't work for me: > > BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2.jar > Expect: fb02f6aff49332705084b662a5d8d

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Some of the MD5s don't work for me: BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2.jar Expect: fb02f6aff49332705084b662a5d8d945 Found: a2d70201e44041f9d9b3d865c615e35f BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.tar.gz Expect: f7d933426b68e184047405b52e9bfa0c Found: 770a8da798eb94137e24e03da2904a66 BAD MD5 commons-email

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Ben Speakmon wrote: > New source and javadoc jars have been uploaded, tag has been reapplied, > and signatures rechecked. Votes again welcome :) +1 Looks good, src-package compiled and ran all tests for my complete compiler zoo. - Jörg -

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

New source and javadoc jars have been uploaded, tag has been reapplied, and signatures rechecked. Votes again welcome :) On 9/24/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just wanted to make sure. > > I will update the RC sources.jar and javadoc.jar with versions that put > the LICENSE/NOTIC

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Just wanted to make sure. I will update the RC sources.jar and javadoc.jar with versions that put the LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF. I'll check in the POM and retag as RC2, leaving the current RC2 artifacts on people.a.o in place as there are no code changes. Is everybody okay with that plan? On 9/2

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Ben Speakmon wrote: That settles it for me. Do we need to put LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF in source and javadoc or is the root directory acceptable? AFAIK these files have always been stored in META-INF. On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ben Speakmon wrote: I wasn't sure w

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

That settles it for me. Do we need to put LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF in source and javadoc or is the root directory acceptable? On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ben Speakmon wrote: > > I wasn't sure what to make of it either; the release docs don't mention > it > > specifica

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Ben Speakmon wrote: I wasn't sure what to make of it either; the release docs don't mention it specifically. The source and javadoc jars, BTW, are intended to be deployed next to the final build in the maven repo. It won't be hard to make sure they get in there. Is there a consensus that it's req

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

I wasn't sure what to make of it either; the release docs don't mention it specifically. The source and javadoc jars, BTW, are intended to be deployed next to the final build in the maven repo. It won't be hard to make sure they get in there. Is there a consensus that it's required for this release

Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

Everything looks good, except for one thing, which I think needs to be fixed: the jar with the javadocs does not contain NOTICE.txt and LICENSE.txt. (The jar with the sources contains these files, but they are stored in the top level rather than in META-INF; don't know whether this is problemat

[VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)

The zombie continues to shuffle across the post-apocalyptic wasteland... I'm proposing RC2 which addresses the issues found in RC1. Artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~bspeakmon/commons-email-1.1-RC2/ Staged site: http://people.apach