All,
A vote is underway to release Apache Commons Proxy 1.0 based on the
4th release candidate. Thus far, the votes are as follows:
+1 Niall Pemberton (binding)
+1 Oliver Heger (binding)
+1 "sebb" (binding)
+1 James Carman (binding)
The vote email was sent Feb 23, 2008 11:47 AM (EDT). The vote
On 24/02/2008, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, now it works for me. So +1 for the release.
Likewise
+1
> Oliver
>
> James Carman schrieb:
>
> > On 2/24/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Can you perhaps regenerate the sigs manually and upload them so we can
> >> re-che
Okay, now it works for me. So +1 for the release.
Oliver
James Carman schrieb:
On 2/24/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you perhaps regenerate the sigs manually and upload them so we can
re-check them?
Done. Sorry about the mix-up. I should have verified them myself. I
think what
On 2/24/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you perhaps regenerate the sigs manually and upload them so we can
> re-check them?
Done. Sorry about the mix-up. I should have verified them myself. I
think what screwed it up was me monkeying with the "phase" for the gpg
plugin. Apparently "
On 24/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/24/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 24/02/2008, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The artifacts look good to me. Everything is fine, but I had a problem
> > > with veryfying the signatures.
> > >
> > > I
On 2/24/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/02/2008, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The artifacts look good to me. Everything is fine, but I had a problem
> > with veryfying the signatures.
> >
> > I am not sure whether I have imported the correct key of James because
>
On 24/02/2008, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The artifacts look good to me. Everything is fine, but I had a problem
> with veryfying the signatures.
>
> I am not sure whether I have imported the correct key of James because
> there have been some commits to KEYS later on. So this may
The artifacts look good to me. Everything is fine, but I had a problem
with veryfying the signatures.
I am not sure whether I have imported the correct key of James because
there have been some commits to KEYS later on. So this may be a problem
with my setup. Did anybody else check the signatures?
On 2/20/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No major problems, however there are some items that can be improved:
>
> Dependency Listings entry:
>
> >>>
> Commons Proxy
>
> Java library for dynamic proxying
>
> ../../../../../people.apache.org/www/commons.apache.org/proper/proxy/
> <<<
>
>
I guess I should add my:
+1 to releasing Proxy based on rc4
On 2/23/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
>
> I have created a release candidate for Apache Commons Proxy 1.0. The
> release was created from SVN tag found here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/pro
+1 to releasing proxy 1.0 based on rc4
Niall
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 4:47 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
>
> I have created a release candidate for Apache Commons Proxy 1.0. The
> release was created from SVN tag found here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/prop
All,
I have created a release candidate for Apache Commons Proxy 1.0. The
release was created from SVN tag found here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/proxy/tags/proxy-1.0-rc4/
The distribution files can be found here:
http://people.apache.org/~jcarman/commons-proxy-1.0-rc4/
Th
Nevermind, I'm going to -1 this one myself. The generated site is all
messed up. I don't know what's messing it up, though. The links are
all relative links to files on my local filesystem for some reason.
Does anyone know how to fix this? Do I have to change something in my
pom.xml file to do
All,
I have created a release candidate for Apache Commons Proxy 1.0. The
release was created from SVN tag found here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/proxy/tags/proxy-1.0-rc3/
The distribution files can be found here:
http://people.apache.org/~jcarman/commons-proxy-1.0/
The ge
Niall Pemberton wrote:
[snip]
> I don't think this works with the release plugin - which is another
> reason for doing it manually - one thing the plugin does is re-name
> the scm entries in the pom.xml to reflect the tag.
This is why Maven folks meanwhile use a stage plugin with a staging area.
On 21/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/21/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about creating a temporary page on the Commons Wiki with this
> information?
> >
> > Once the process has been nailed down and tested, it should be moved
> > to the formal website.
>
On 2/21/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about creating a temporary page on the Commons Wiki with this information?
>
> Once the process has been nailed down and tested, it should be moved
> to the formal website.
>
I like this idea! I can try to update it with anything I run into as
I
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:57 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 21/02/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:27 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 21/02/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 17:43 +, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:27 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 21/02/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:18 PM, James Carman
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 2/20/0
On 21/02/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:27 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 21/02/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:18 PM, James Carman
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 2/
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:27 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 21/02/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:18 PM, James Carman
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 2/20/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Yup, sorry abo
On 21/02/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:18 PM, James Carman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2/20/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Yup, sorry about this - we changed process just over a year - I think
> > > following this t
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:18 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/20/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yup, sorry about this - we changed process just over a year - I think
> > following this thread:
> > http://commons.markmail.org/message/vw3ckyjakjgbdlbu
> >
>
On 2/20/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yup, sorry about this - we changed process just over a year - I think
> following this thread:
> http://commons.markmail.org/message/vw3ckyjakjgbdlbu
>
> ...but no-one has go round to updating the docs. The other part of the
> equation is
No major problems, however there are some items that can be improved:
Dependency Listings entry:
>>>
Commons Proxy
Java library for dynamic proxying
../../../../../people.apache.org/www/commons.apache.org/proper/proxy/
<<<
Not sure where that originates, but it does not look right.
Ideally th
A few suggestions for the next release (don't hold 1.0 just for this if
you don't have the time) :
- A tutorial with short code examples would be nice to get a quick taste
of the API. The overview page is not very sexy, I'm not a proxy guru and
I'm not sure to understand what I can achieve wit
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:03 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/20/08, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> > You are right, the release instructions seem to be outdated in this area.
> >
> > It has become common practice to cut release candidates, tag them as
>
On 2/20/08, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> You are right, the release instructions seem to be outdated in this area.
>
> It has become common practice to cut release candidates, tag them as
> such in subversion, but set the version numbers to the actual release
> version. (Typical
James Carman schrieb:
On 2/20/08, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niall Pemberton schrieb:
I'm +0 on this release because I like to review the actual artifacts
> that are going to be distributed. The distros IMO meet ASF release
> requirements but if I run command "mvn -Prc site ass
On 2/20/08, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton schrieb:
>
> > I'm +0 on this release because I like to review the actual artifacts
> > that are going to be distributed. The distros IMO meet ASF release
> > requirements but if I run command "mvn -Prc site assembly:assembly"
Niall Pemberton schrieb:
I'm +0 on this release because I like to review the actual artifacts
that are going to be distributed. The distros IMO meet ASF release
requirements but if I run command "mvn -Prc site assembly:assembly"
then the binary distro created also includes the javadocs and also
-
On 2/19/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2008 4:32 AM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2/19/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 2/19/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I'm +0 on this release because I like to review the
On Feb 20, 2008 4:32 AM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/19/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2/19/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm +0 on this release because I like to review the actual artifacts
> > > that are going to be distributed. The di
On 2/19/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/19/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm +0 on this release because I like to review the actual artifacts
> > that are going to be distributed. The distros IMO meet ASF release
> > requirements but if I run command "mvn -Pr
On 2/19/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm +0 on this release because I like to review the actual artifacts
> that are going to be distributed. The distros IMO meet ASF release
> requirements but if I run command "mvn -Prc site assembly:assembly"
> then the binary distro created a
I'm +0 on this release because I like to review the actual artifacts
that are going to be distributed. The distros IMO meet ASF release
requirements but if I run command "mvn -Prc site assembly:assembly"
then the binary distro created also includes the javadocs and also
-sources.jar and -javadoc.ja
All,
I have prepared a commons-proxy-1.0-rc2 release candidate. The
distribution files can be found at:
http://people.apache.org/~jcarman/commons-proxy-1.0-rc2/
and the site can be found at:
http://people.apache.org/~jcarman/commons-proxy-1.0-rc2/site
The SVN tag used to create the release ca
sebb wrote:
On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, as far as I can tell these are the current issues with this
release candidate (and what I've done to fix them):
1. Source
On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So, as far as I can tell these are the current issues with this
> > > release candidate (and what I've done to fix them):
> > >
> > >
On 2/19/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So, as far as I can tell these are the current issues with this
> > > release candidate (and what I've done to fix them):
> > >
> > > 1.
On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, as far as I can tell these are the current issues with this
> > release candidate (and what I've done to fix them):
> >
> > 1. Source Incompatible w/1.3 - Changed the source/target to 1.4 i
On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, as far as I can tell these are the current issues with this
> release candidate (and what I've done to fix them):
>
> 1. Source Incompatible w/1.3 - Changed the source/target to 1.4 in
> proxy's pom file
>
> 2. Javadoc Links - The new J
So, as far as I can tell these are the current issues with this
release candidate (and what I've done to fix them):
1. Source Incompatible w/1.3 - Changed the source/target to 1.4 in
proxy's pom file
2. Javadoc Links - The new Javadocs will have links to JDK, XML-RPC,
Javassist, AOP Alliance, a
On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It's written to be 1.3 compliant.
> >
> > It appears to be so if one uses Maven, however I just tried it with
> > Eclipse, and there are some classes which are not compatible with 1.3.
> >
> >
On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's written to be 1.3 compliant.
>
> It appears to be so if one uses Maven, however I just tried it with
> Eclipse, and there are some classes which are not compatible with 1.3.
>
> RuntimeException does not have RuntimeException([String,]Throwable)
On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > There are no digests (.md5 or .sha) and no signature (.asc) files.
> >
>
> I went by these directions:
>
> http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html
>
> which doesn't mention anything
On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There are no digests (.md5 or .sha) and no signature (.asc) files.
>
I went by these directions:
http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html
which doesn't mention anything about doing digests or signing the
release candidates. That is left for
On 19/02/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2008 6:31 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
On Feb 19, 2008 6:31 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I have prepared a commons-proxy-1.0-rc1 release candidate. The
> >
On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have prepared a commons-proxy-1.0-rc1 release candidate. The
> > > distribution files can be found at:
> > >
> > > http://people.a
On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have prepared a commons-proxy-1.0-rc1 release candidate. The
> > distribution files can be found at:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~jcarman/commons-proxy-1.0-rc1/
> >
>
> Can't access the
On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have prepared a commons-proxy-1.0-rc1 release candidate. The
> distribution files can be found at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jcarman/commons-proxy-1.0-rc1/
>
Can't access the archives:
You don't have permission to access
/~jcarman/co
Emmanuel,
I've added it into my pom.xml and I will include that in the rc2
release candidate.
On 2/19/08, Emmanuel Bourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A minor suggestion regarding the javadoc, that would be nice if the
> pages were linked to the JDK javadoc. This was done through the
> maven.javad
I'll include that in the rc2 email. ;)
On 2/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be helpful to include the SVN tag in the e-mail so the
> release artifacts can be checked against SVN...
>
> On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have prepared a commons-proxy-1.0
I wonder why that's not part of the parent pom? That is a good idea! :)
On 2/19/08, Emmanuel Bourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A minor suggestion regarding the javadoc, that would be nice if the
> pages were linked to the JDK javadoc. This was done through the
> maven.javadoc.links property with
A minor suggestion regarding the javadoc, that would be nice if the
pages were linked to the JDK javadoc. This was done through the
maven.javadoc.links property with Maven 1, I don't know the equivalent
with Maven 2.
Emmanuel Bourg
James Carman a écrit :
I have prepared a commons-proxy-1.0-
It would be helpful to include the SVN tag in the e-mail so the
release artifacts can be checked against SVN...
On 19/02/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have prepared a commons-proxy-1.0-rc1 release candidate. The
> distribution files can be found at:
>
> http://people.apache.or
I have prepared a commons-proxy-1.0-rc1 release candidate. The
distribution files can be found at:
http://people.apache.org/~jcarman/commons-proxy-1.0-rc1/
and the site can be found at:
http://people.apache.org/~jcarman/commons-proxy-1.0-rc1/site
Note: This is my first release, so please look
58 matches
Mail list logo
