On 12.12.17 09:14, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> This is the part I really don't understand since it will never work.
Yes, I know. And I agree. But it's the process in commons as of now.
Let's get this out of the door and save the discussion for later.
Please?
Bye, Thomas
This is the part I really don't understand since it will never work.
Either we respect the tag and therefore need yet another release to
have a final which makes the RC pointless or we do not respect the tag
which is worse IMHO. From my point of view it is way less hurting to
not do the RC than doi
On 11.12.17 22:43, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> I can drop the rc2, no problem but can you confirm rc3 will be this exact
> vote with revisions as only change?
yes, and the RC-tag is probably required.
Bye, Thomas.
-
To unsubscri
Hmm,
I can drop the rc2, no problem but can you confirm rc3 will be this exact
vote with revisions as only change?
If so can try next week yes.
Le 11 déc. 2017 22:15, "Thomas Vandahl" a écrit :
> Hi Romain,
>
> On 20.11.17 09:15, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > do we have a real blocker on the r
Hi Romain,
On 20.11.17 09:15, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> do we have a real blocker on the release? Being said having the RC or
> not now is pointless since the tag is there, are we waiting for
> anything particular? Happy to drop the RC if it brings more confusion
> than it helps.
Would you plea
Hmmm, sorry Gary but I'm not sure how to read this answer.
Le 9 déc. 2017 20:04, "Gary Gregory" a écrit :
I know releasing is a pain but folks do it all the time, this is what we
have released since the last board report:
→ *BCEL-6.1* was released on Sun Sep 17 2017
→ *BCEL-6.2* was released on
I know releasing is a pain but folks do it all the time, this is what we
have released since the last board report:
→ *BCEL-6.1* was released on Sun Sep 17 2017
→ *BCEL-6.2* was released on Thu Dec 07 2017
→ *CODEC-1.11* was released on Thu Oct 19 2017
→ *COMPRESS-1.15* was released on Mon Oct 16
Last up guys, from what has been said there is no clean way to do a
commons release (RC procedure *does not* work cause it does not enable
to do a final release through a copy) so the original vote mail is
probably the best compromise we can have today. Since the vote is a
bit old now I ping a last
Le 20 nov. 2017 19:44, "Gary Gregory" a écrit :
Please delete the tag
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jcs/tags/commons-jcs-2.2.1/
; it should not exist since the software is not released.
No, the RC should not exist. This one is the only correct one since it is
aligned between v
Please delete the tag
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jcs/tags/commons-jcs-2.2.1/
; it should not exist since the software is not released.
Personally, I'd like to see a clean VOTE email at the very least with all
the bits in place in the message instead of reading through this who
Guys,
do we have a real blocker on the release? Being said having the RC or
not now is pointless since the tag is there, are we waiting for
anything particular? Happy to drop the RC if it brings more confusion
than it helps.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
On 06.11.17 21:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> created
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jcs/tags/commons-jcs-2.2.1-RC2/
> (rev 1814438)
Thanks, Romain. However, the POM file in this RC tag contains now
--8<--
scm:svn:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jcs/tags/co
created
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jcs/tags/commons-jcs-2.2.1-RC2/
(rev 1814438)
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
2017-11-06 20:46 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory :
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
>
>> On 06.11.17 04:48,
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> On 06.11.17 04:48, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > The document http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html clearly
> shows
> > an example of an RC tag being labeled with the "RC1" postfix.
>
> Not in the maven-release-plugin chapter. And with
Think the idea was to avoid to have a tag which can have been checked
out already but fundamentally agree there is no point to have such a
rule and it just makes the project handling hard with no benefit in
practise.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
2017-11-
On 06.11.17 04:48, Gary Gregory wrote:
> The document http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html clearly shows
> an example of an RC tag being labeled with the "RC1" postfix.
Not in the maven-release-plugin chapter. And with reason. The problem of
the later copy would be, that the tagged pom.
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Answers inline.
>
> 2017-11-06 7:08 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory :
> > The blocker part is that the VOTE email does not follow the process or
> the
> > format outlined on http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html
> >
> > Specifical
Answers inline.
2017-11-06 7:08 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory :
> The blocker part is that the VOTE email does not follow the process or the
> format outlined on http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html
>
> Specifically,
> - the tag does not contain an "RC2" postfix (since this is the 2nd RC).
> -
The blocker part is that the VOTE email does not follow the process or the
format outlined on http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html
Specifically,
- the tag does not contain an "RC2" postfix (since this is the 2nd RC).
- there is not tag for RC1 so we've lost what we voted on for RC1 (too
Dist/Nexus is a manual step but ok. Rc creation is a blocker since it
prevent to use maven tools - release plugin. Did we - as commons - already
open a feature request to maven?
Anyway dont think it blocks the release *now* so can we proceed?
Also moving to git can solve it by design too since we
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
>
> > Am 27.10.2017 um 12:51 schrieb Thomas Vandahl :
> >
> > Hi Gary,
> >
> > On 25.10.17 05:24, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> Our process documented here http://commons.apache.org/
> releases/prepare.html
> >> makes it pretty clear that the R
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> On 25.10.17 05:24, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > Our process documented here http://commons.apache.org/
> releases/prepare.html
> > makes it pretty clear that the RC tag should be labeled as such and that
> a
> > tag like "commons-jc
> Am 27.10.2017 um 12:51 schrieb Thomas Vandahl :
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> On 25.10.17 05:24, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Our process documented here http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html
>> makes it pretty clear that the RC tag should be labeled as such and that a
>> tag like "commons-jcs-2.2.1"
Hi Gary,
On 25.10.17 05:24, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Our process documented here http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html
> makes it pretty clear that the RC tag should be labeled as such and that a
> tag like "commons-jcs-2.2.1" should only be created after a VOTE passes.
as this release is
Ok, will try this week-end. Thanks for the feedback.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn
2017-10-25 6:42 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory :
> IMO, you should redo the tag and rewrite the VOTE email following the
> template in http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.ht
IMO, you should redo the tag and rewrite the VOTE email following the
template in http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html
Gary
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Hmm,
>
> Read that page but the answer is probably hidden in the commons parent - rc
> property? -
Hmm,
Read that page but the answer is probably hidden in the commons parent - rc
property? - cause it is not written how a rc version ends in a not rc
version for binaries on nexus with the release plugin. Will check which
magic we do here later this week but anyway shouldnt block the release IMO
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:28 PM, kenneth mcfarland <
kennethpmcfarl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary, I can't help but say great work on all of these releases. #praise
>
Thank you Kenneth.
Gary
>
> On Oct 24, 2017 8:24 PM, "Gary Gregory" wrote:
>
> > Our process documented here http://commons.apac
On 22 October 2017 at 16:17, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> So i just copy the mvn release tag? Sounds quite useless since the tag is
> done no?
>
A release candidate is supposed to match the eventual release at some
point; that's why it's a "candidate". Making a copy of an RC tag to make
the final
Gary, I can't help but say great work on all of these releases. #praise
On Oct 24, 2017 8:24 PM, "Gary Gregory" wrote:
> Our process documented here http://commons.apache.org/
> releases/prepare.html
> makes it pretty clear that the RC tag should be labeled as such and that a
> tag like "commons
Our process documented here http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html
makes it pretty clear that the RC tag should be labeled as such and that a
tag like "commons-jcs-2.2.1" should only be created after a VOTE passes.
Gary
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> So i
So i just copy the mvn release tag? Sounds quite useless since the tag is
done no?
Le 22 oct. 2017 21:14, "Gary Gregory" a écrit :
> We need a tag for an RC in order to match a VOTE thread with the code being
> proposed.
>
> Gary
>
> On Oct 22, 2017 10:24, "Romain Manni-Bucau" wrote:
>
> > Revi
We need a tag for an RC in order to match a VOTE thread with the code being
proposed.
Gary
On Oct 22, 2017 10:24, "Romain Manni-Bucau" wrote:
> Revision is r1812876.
>
> Have to admit im not sure about the hack to use to have a rc tag (name)
> without rc artifacts which wouldnt match the target
Revision is r1812876.
Have to admit im not sure about the hack to use to have a rc tag (name)
without rc artifacts which wouldnt match the target release with mvn
release plugin but dont think it is a blocker (but still happy to learn it
;)).
Le 22 oct. 2017 17:29, "Gary Gregory" a écrit :
The
The tag name is wrong because it is not postfixed with RC2. All SVN links
should be accompanied with a revision number.
Gary
On Oct 22, 2017 02:31, "Romain Manni-Bucau" wrote:
Hello guys,
I would like to release the [jcs] component to resolve a cdi
performance issue (JCS-183) and a bug in disp
35 matches
Mail list logo
