celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pepijn Noltes <pepijnnol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Fw: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Celix version 2.0.0
Date Wed, 26 Oct 2016 12:06:55 GMT
Closing the vote and adding +1 for myself.

I created jira issues for the remarks mentioned:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CELIX-382
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CELIX-383
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CELIX-384


This brings the total to +7 with +5 binding votes.



On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 8:01 PM gerritbinnenmars <gerritbinnenmars@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> +1 for the release
>
> Verzonden vanaf mijn Samsung-apparaat
>
> -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht --------
> Van: Pepijn Noltes <pepijnnoltes@gmail.com>
> Datum: 24-10-2016  10:44  (GMT+01:00)
> Aan: dev@celix.apache.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Celix version 2.0.0
>
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks for commenting and voting on the release.
> See remarks inline.
>
> Greetings,
> Pepijn
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:02 AM Gerrit Binnenmars <
> gerritbinnenmars@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pepijn,
> >
> > A few minor point, can you have a look at these?
> >
> > 1. In the RELEASE_NOTES you state that some components are 2.0.0 and
> others
> > are 1.0.0.
> > I noticed that the 1.0.0 components were in the original celix-
> > 1.0.0-incubating.tar.gz so this is in my opinion confusing.
> >
>
> Some versions in the release notes are indeed not correct, I think this is
> a minor issue and should not prevent a release.
>
>
> >
> > 2. In the documents/building/readme.md the git clone command mentions
> the
> > develop branch,, please adapt this for the final release!
> >
> > 3. In documents/intro/readme.md there is a reference to
> ../best_practices/
> > readme.md that is missing
> >
> > 4. I would like to mention in the documents/getting_started/readme.md
> that
> > after running make,
> >     the subdirectory deploy contains several examples that can be run
> using
> > the wrapper scripts run.sh
> >     Maybe also add a reference to the Readme.md of the shell component?
> >
>
> > In the past, and also nowadays there are a lot of complaints about the
> > Celix documentation. I was quite surprised by the maturity of the current
> > docs.
> > For that reason, I would encourage all voters to have a detailed look at
> > the documentation.before the final release!
> >
>
>
> About the documentation, thanks for reviewing it. If it is alright with you
> I like to create a issue for updating the docs and push to master after the
> release.
> The downside of using the markdown documentation in github is that the
> documentation becomes fixed with a release. IMO still better (easier to
> maintain) than the documentation on the website. In this case I would like
> to make an exception to the git flow procedure and accept pushes to master
> for documentation purpose.
>
>
> > Compiling and running works fine!
> >
> > What is going to happen with the website that is quite outdated?
> >
>
> After the release I will update the website: Update news, release
> procedure, remove deprecated documentation parts and for the rest forward
> to the github documentation markdown files (master branch).
>
> If you are agree or disagree with releasing the release candidate please
> add a +1 or -1 vote. I will keep this vote open for another 24 hours.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Greetings Gerrit
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Alexander Broekhuis <
> > a.broekhuis@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Verified the signatures (MD5, SHA512, ASC agains public key), and all
> is
> > > ok.
> > >
> > > I do not have a full working setup at the moment, so I did not verify
> > > building/running. Looking at the other replies, this looks to be ok.
> > >
> > > Just a remark, Pepijn does not have any trusted signatures. For future
> > > releases that might be a good idea.. see [1]
> > > And another remark, perhaps we need to include some documentation on
> the
> > > website how to verify the source file.
> > >
> >
>
> Good points. I will address this after the release.
>
>
> > >
> > > [1]: https://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual.html#AEN335
> > >
> > >
> > > 2016-10-19 20:22 GMT+02:00 Miroslav Beranič <
> miroslav.beranic@mibesis.si
> > >:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > +1 from my side, quite happy with the proposed release.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Miroslav
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2016-10-19 15:04 GMT+02:00  <erik@jansman.eu>:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for me, nice work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Erik
> > > > > Citeren Pepijn Noltes <pepijnnoltes@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi All,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Finally I think we are ready for a new release :), so without
> > further
> > > > ado:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is the release vote for Apache Celix, version 2.0.0
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This release solves 196 issues. Most of them bugs, some of them
> > > > features.
> > > > >> Most significantly is adds the dependency manager, support for
C++
> > > > >> (through a C++ dependency manager) and removes the use of APR.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Source files:
> > > > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/celix/celix-2.0.0.rc1/
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The tag to be voted upon:
> > > > >> rel/celix-2.0.0.rc1 @ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/
> > > repos/asf/celix.git
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Celix's keys can be found at:
> > > > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/celix/KEYS
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Information for voting on a release can be found at
> > > > >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please vote to approve this release:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> > > > >> [ ] -1 Disapprove the release (please provide specific comments)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Note that an Apache release needs to be a Majority Approval
> > (requires
> > > > >> at teast 3 binding +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes).
> > > > >> If this release is approved I will promote it to an official
> release
> > > > >> (e.g. move to dist/release without the rc1 qualifier and retag
> > without
> > > > >> the rc1 qualifier)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Greetings,
> > > > >> Pepijn
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Miroslav Beranič
> > > > MIBESIS
> > > > +386(0)40/814-843 <+386%2040%20814%20843> <+386%2040%20814%20843>
> > > > miroslav.beranic@mibesis.si
> > > > http://www.mibesis.si
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Met vriendelijke groet,
> > >
> > > Alexander Broekhuis
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message