celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From gerritbinnenmars <gerritbinnenm...@gmail.com>
Subject Fw: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Celix version 2.0.0
Date Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:00:29 GMT

    

+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>
> > > miroslav.beranic@mibesis.si
> > > http://www.mibesis.si
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Met vriendelijke groet,
> >
> > Alexander Broekhuis
> >
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message