juneau-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS]: Release Apache Juneau 6.0.1-incubating RC2
Date Mon, 12 Dec 2016 00:35:49 GMT
On 29 November 2016 at 14:29, James Bognar <jamesbognar@apache.org> wrote:
> These should fix issues found by John and Stian in RC1....
> RELEASE-NOTES updated.
> hashsums included in vote email.
> Source and binary zips are named similarly.
> Got rid of .DS_Store file in git.
> Fixed JUnit failures due to localization issue.
> I didn't remove the .classpath/.project/.settings files.  We previously
> decided to leave these in the repo.

I'll jot down here my random comments to not pollute the VOTE thread  more..

does not unpack into a single directory, but pollutes my download
folder with multiple generic files and folders like "osgi-bundles/"

I would recommend to change this to have everything under a single
top-level folder apache-juneau-6.0.1/   (or apache-juneau-6.0.1-bin/
if you like)

The distro filenames does not include "apache-" prefix in the filename
or unpacked foldername. This is not required, but recommended, e.g. I
would have after releasing:


unpacking to apache-juneau-6.0.1-incubating instead of juneau-6.0.1-incubating.

If you want I can have a look at the Maven assembler config on how to
set such a <finalName> for the dists -- BTW, you have to be careful
not to set the <finalName> for the master pom.xml  as it would affect
every module (that would wrongly make

The vote email didn't include checksums of the release artifact under
juneau/binaries/juneau-6.0.1-incubating-RC2 -- although Apache says
that "source is king" and binaries are just for convenience, those
binaries are still subject to the Release vote. So it's best practice
to include either all the hashes, or the SVN revision number (svn log
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/juneau | head says

As mentioned the localization bug is not fixed everywhere.. It's quite
common during a release that a bug is found, then kind-of fixed, but
still not quite there. You seem to have changed your mind from "let's
fix the localization bug for 6.0.1" to "OK, let's just push it out
anyway" -- that's a fair decision for a Release Manager to make given
sufficient votes - but I think those kind of considerations should be
discussed explicitly on dev@ to allow the rest of community to have a
say first. (If they want :))

Stian Soiland-Reyes

View raw message