[VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
31 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

Stefan Bodewig
Hi

since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added
read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support
for 7z.

I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
immediately change the site after the release to include the release
date anyway.

Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here:
    https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/
    (svn revision 3254)

  Maven artifacts are here:
    https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/

  Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes:
    https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt

  The tag is here:
    https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/
    (svn revision 1531616)

  Site:
    http://commons.apache.org/compress/

  Clirr Report (compared to 1.5):
    http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html

  RAT Report:
    http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html

  KEYS:
  http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
         
  Please review the release candidate and vote.
  This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530
  GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of
  this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday.

  [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
  [ ] +0 OK, but...
  [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
  [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...

  Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

garydgregory
"Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review" ? ;)

Gary

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added
> read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support
> for 7z.
>
> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
> date anyway.
>
> Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here:
>     https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/
>     (svn revision 3254)
>
>   Maven artifacts are here:
>     https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/
>
>   Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes:
>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>
>   The tag is here:
>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/
>     (svn revision 1531616)
>
>   Site:
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/
>
>   Clirr Report (compared to 1.5):
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html
>
>   RAT Report:
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html
>
>   KEYS:
>   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>
>   Please review the release candidate and vote.
>   This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530
>   GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of
>   this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday.
>
>   [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>   [ ] +0 OK, but...
>   [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>   [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>
>   Thanks!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

garydgregory
In reply to this post by Stefan Bodewig
+1

BUT the following are not blockers but should be improved if another RC is cut:
- Low (27%) code coverage for the new class
https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-compress/cobertura/org.apache.commons.compress.archivers.arj.ArjArchiveEntry.html
- PMD violations in new code, for example ArjArchiveInputStream.
- The change report should have the date of the RC instead of "not
released, yet".
- Using the live site for the RC is a bad idea IMO because the source
will have to be changed to update the version, for example "The
current release is 1.5." and "Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5"
and who knows what else will have to be changed. This means that what
is in the RC is NOT building the 1.6 site, it is building a SNAPSHOT
site.
- Site overview page: I do not want to read a history lesson ('The
code in this component has many origins:') first, please tell me how
to use the software first, then at the bottom, I can read about
history.
- Site overview page: too much redundant information (should be
collapsed into one place):
  - Status (1st line): The current release is 1.5.
  - Documentation (1st line): Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5.
  - Releases (1st line): The latest version v1.5, is Java5 compatible
And it is all about 1.5 instead of 1.6! See above.
 - Add a "What's new in 1.6" section instead of burying the
information in the middle of the text: "As of Commons Compress 1.6
support for the dump and arj formats is read-only".

For me, I would do another RC but these are not hard core blockers.

Gary


On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added
> read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support
> for 7z.
>
> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
> date anyway.
>
> Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here:
>     https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/
>     (svn revision 3254)
>
>   Maven artifacts are here:
>     https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/
>
>   Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes:
>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>
>   The tag is here:
>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/
>     (svn revision 1531616)
>
>   Site:
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/
>
>   Clirr Report (compared to 1.5):
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html
>
>   RAT Report:
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html
>
>   KEYS:
>   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>
>   Please review the release candidate and vote.
>   This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530
>   GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of
>   this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday.
>
>   [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>   [ ] +0 OK, but...
>   [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>   [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>
>   Thanks!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

Emmanuel Bourg-3
In reply to this post by Stefan Bodewig
+1

Emmanuel Bourg


Le 13/10/2013 07:31, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :

> Hi
>
> since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added
> read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support
> for 7z.
>
> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
> date anyway.
>
> Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here:
>     https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/
>     (svn revision 3254)
>
>   Maven artifacts are here:
>     https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/
>
>   Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes:
>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>
>   The tag is here:
>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/
>     (svn revision 1531616)
>
>   Site:
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/
>
>   Clirr Report (compared to 1.5):
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html
>
>   RAT Report:
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html
>
>   KEYS:
>   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>          
>   Please review the release candidate and vote.
>   This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530
>   GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of
>   this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday.
>
>   [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>   [ ] +0 OK, but...
>   [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>   [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>
>   Thanks!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


signature.asc (851 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

Stefan Bodewig
In reply to this post by garydgregory
On 2013-10-13, Gary Gregory wrote:

> +1

Thanks.

> BUT the following are not blockers but should be improved if another RC is cut:
> - Low (27%) code coverage for the new class
> https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-compress/cobertura/org.apache.commons.compress.archivers.arj.ArjArchiveEntry.html
> - PMD violations in new code, for example ArjArchiveInputStream.

I'll look into that later, but I'll likely now cut a new RC for that.

> - The change report should have the date of the RC instead of "not
> released, yet".

Why?  It is going to be changed to the date of the relase anyway.

> - Using the live site for the RC is a bad idea IMO because the source
> will have to be changed to update the version, for example "The
> current release is 1.5." and "Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5"
> and who knows what else will have to be changed. This means that what
> is in the RC is NOT building the 1.6 site, it is building a SNAPSHOT
> site.

I'll start a separate thread to discuss this to not clutter the vote
thread.  IMHO the site is completely irrelevant for release votes.

> - Site overview page: I do not want to read a history lesson ('The
> code in this component has many origins:') first, please tell me how
> to use the software first, then at the bottom, I can read about
> history.
> - Site overview page: too much redundant information (should be
> collapsed into one place):
>   - Status (1st line): The current release is 1.5.
>   - Documentation (1st line): Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5.
>   - Releases (1st line): The latest version v1.5, is Java5 compatible
>  - Add a "What's new in 1.6" section instead of burying the
> information in the middle of the text: "As of Commons Compress 1.6
> support for the dump and arj formats is read-only".

The main page - and in fact all of the Compress site - hasn't really
changed in three or four years.  I agree it could use a major overhaul
but that's really nothing I see my strength in - this should be driven
by other people.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Site Builds and Release Votes

Stefan Bodewig
In reply to this post by garydgregory
Hi all

in the recent release vote for Compress Gary and I had very different
opinions on the importance of the site build for release candidates.

On 2013-10-13, Gary Gregory wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
>> date anyway.

> - Using the live site for the RC is a bad idea IMO because the source
> will have to be changed to update the version, for example "The
> current release is 1.5." and "Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5"
> and who knows what else will have to be changed. This means that what
> is in the RC is NOT building the 1.6 site, it is building a SNAPSHOT
> site.

To me creating the site is one of the completely unnecessary steps to
perform when cutting a release candidate.  Building and uploading the
site takes something > 15 minutes to me.  So far I have never published
the RC site when the RC was accepted but rather created a new site build
that contained the release date, updated the changes report with a
placeholder for the next release and so on.

We can - and should - update the site outside of any release anyway, so
to me the site content is completely irrelevant when I evaluate
releases.

I'll admit that this mirrors my suspicion that nobody looks at the site
build contained in the binary release anyway.  People use their
dependency manager of choice and the online docs in my experience.

How do others think about the release candidate site build?

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Site Builds and Release Votes

Luc Maisonobe
Le 13/10/2013 17:35, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :

> Hi all
>
> in the recent release vote for Compress Gary and I had very different
> opinions on the importance of the site build for release candidates.
>
> On 2013-10-13, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
>>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
>>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
>>> date anyway.
>
>> - Using the live site for the RC is a bad idea IMO because the source
>> will have to be changed to update the version, for example "The
>> current release is 1.5." and "Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5"
>> and who knows what else will have to be changed. This means that what
>> is in the RC is NOT building the 1.6 site, it is building a SNAPSHOT
>> site.
>
> To me creating the site is one of the completely unnecessary steps to
> perform when cutting a release candidate.  Building and uploading the
> site takes something > 15 minutes to me.  So far I have never published
> the RC site when the RC was accepted but rather created a new site build
> that contained the release date, updated the changes report with a
> placeholder for the next release and so on.
>
> We can - and should - update the site outside of any release anyway, so
> to me the site content is completely irrelevant when I evaluate
> releases.
>
> I'll admit that this mirrors my suspicion that nobody looks at the site
> build contained in the binary release anyway.  People use their
> dependency manager of choice and the online docs in my experience.
>
> How do others think about the release candidate site build?

I agree the site build is orthogonal to release.
The main thing we release is source code. Then on top of that we add
some binaries, but it is already a by-product. The site itself is not
something we should consider to be in the scope of the release.

Luc

>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Site Builds and Release Votes

Henri Yandell
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Luc Maisonobe <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Le 13/10/2013 17:35, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
> > Hi all
> >
> > in the recent release vote for Compress Gary and I had very different
> > opinions on the importance of the site build for release candidates.
> >
> > On 2013-10-13, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
> >>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
> >>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
> >>> date anyway.
> >
> >> - Using the live site for the RC is a bad idea IMO because the source
> >> will have to be changed to update the version, for example "The
> >> current release is 1.5." and "Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5"
> >> and who knows what else will have to be changed. This means that what
> >> is in the RC is NOT building the 1.6 site, it is building a SNAPSHOT
> >> site.
> >
> > To me creating the site is one of the completely unnecessary steps to
> > perform when cutting a release candidate.  Building and uploading the
> > site takes something > 15 minutes to me.  So far I have never published
> > the RC site when the RC was accepted but rather created a new site build
> > that contained the release date, updated the changes report with a
> > placeholder for the next release and so on.
> >
> > We can - and should - update the site outside of any release anyway, so
> > to me the site content is completely irrelevant when I evaluate
> > releases.
> >
> > I'll admit that this mirrors my suspicion that nobody looks at the site
> > build contained in the binary release anyway.  People use their
> > dependency manager of choice and the online docs in my experience.
> >
> > How do others think about the release candidate site build?
>
> I agree the site build is orthogonal to release.
> The main thing we release is source code. Then on top of that we add
> some binaries, but it is already a by-product. The site itself is not
> something we should consider to be in the scope of the release.
>
>
 Agreed - the site build as a whole is for informative purposes during a
vote. If there are any bugs in a site, they never block the release as they
can be fixed out of band.

The only items that should be blockers on the site build are those included
in the distribution. I thought that was only the javadoc instead of the
whole site? I'd definitely consider a bad javadoc to be something we should
consider a new RC for, though it would depend on the severity. The cost of
building a new RC is greater than fixing a typo in javadoc.

Hen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Site Builds and Release Votes

Phil Steitz
On 10/13/13 11:51 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Luc Maisonobe <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Le 13/10/2013 17:35, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> in the recent release vote for Compress Gary and I had very different
>>> opinions on the importance of the site build for release candidates.
>>>
>>> On 2013-10-13, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
>>>>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
>>>>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
>>>>> date anyway.
>>>> - Using the live site for the RC is a bad idea IMO because the source
>>>> will have to be changed to update the version, for example "The
>>>> current release is 1.5." and "Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5"
>>>> and who knows what else will have to be changed. This means that what
>>>> is in the RC is NOT building the 1.6 site, it is building a SNAPSHOT
>>>> site.
>>> To me creating the site is one of the completely unnecessary steps to
>>> perform when cutting a release candidate.  Building and uploading the
>>> site takes something > 15 minutes to me.  So far I have never published
>>> the RC site when the RC was accepted but rather created a new site build
>>> that contained the release date, updated the changes report with a
>>> placeholder for the next release and so on.
>>>
>>> We can - and should - update the site outside of any release anyway, so
>>> to me the site content is completely irrelevant when I evaluate
>>> releases.
>>>
>>> I'll admit that this mirrors my suspicion that nobody looks at the site
>>> build contained in the binary release anyway.  People use their
>>> dependency manager of choice and the online docs in my experience.
>>>
>>> How do others think about the release candidate site build?
>> I agree the site build is orthogonal to release.
>> The main thing we release is source code. Then on top of that we add
>> some binaries, but it is already a by-product. The site itself is not
>> something we should consider to be in the scope of the release.
>>
>>
>  Agreed - the site build as a whole is for informative purposes during a
> vote. If there are any bugs in a site, they never block the release as they
> can be fixed out of band.
>
> The only items that should be blockers on the site build are those included
> in the distribution. I thought that was only the javadoc instead of the
> whole site? I'd definitely consider a bad javadoc to be something we should
> consider a new RC for, though it would depend on the severity. The cost of
> building a new RC is greater than fixing a typo in javadoc.

+1 - though I think we should be carefully reviewing the javadoc in
prep for releases and evaluation of RCs.  The other exception to
this rule is when components ship user guides.  These should be
updated for releases and should be evaluated as part of RC
evaluation.  But I agree strongly with the view that updating the
public site can and should be viewed as a post-release activity.  I
also don't think we should be shipping full site contents in binary
releases if somehow we have reverted to doing that.  The
xdoc/apt/whatever should be tagged and included as part of source
release, but nits with it should not be release blockers, IMO.

Phil
>
> Hen
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Site Builds and Release Votes

Oliver Heger-3
In reply to this post by Henri Yandell
Am 13.10.2013 20:51, schrieb Henri Yandell:

> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Luc Maisonobe <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Le 13/10/2013 17:35, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> in the recent release vote for Compress Gary and I had very different
>>> opinions on the importance of the site build for release candidates.
>>>
>>> On 2013-10-13, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
>>>>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
>>>>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
>>>>> date anyway.
>>>
>>>> - Using the live site for the RC is a bad idea IMO because the source
>>>> will have to be changed to update the version, for example "The
>>>> current release is 1.5." and "Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5"
>>>> and who knows what else will have to be changed. This means that what
>>>> is in the RC is NOT building the 1.6 site, it is building a SNAPSHOT
>>>> site.
>>>
>>> To me creating the site is one of the completely unnecessary steps to
>>> perform when cutting a release candidate.  Building and uploading the
>>> site takes something > 15 minutes to me.  So far I have never published
>>> the RC site when the RC was accepted but rather created a new site build
>>> that contained the release date, updated the changes report with a
>>> placeholder for the next release and so on.
>>>
>>> We can - and should - update the site outside of any release anyway, so
>>> to me the site content is completely irrelevant when I evaluate
>>> releases.
>>>
>>> I'll admit that this mirrors my suspicion that nobody looks at the site
>>> build contained in the binary release anyway.  People use their
>>> dependency manager of choice and the online docs in my experience.
>>>
>>> How do others think about the release candidate site build?
>>
>> I agree the site build is orthogonal to release.
>> The main thing we release is source code. Then on top of that we add
>> some binaries, but it is already a by-product. The site itself is not
>> something we should consider to be in the scope of the release.
>>
>>
>  Agreed - the site build as a whole is for informative purposes during a
> vote. If there are any bugs in a site, they never block the release as they
> can be fixed out of band.
>
> The only items that should be blockers on the site build are those included
> in the distribution. I thought that was only the javadoc instead of the
> whole site? I'd definitely consider a bad javadoc to be something we should
> consider a new RC for, though it would depend on the severity. The cost of
> building a new RC is greater than fixing a typo in javadoc.
>
> Hen
>
But shouldn't the site at least be in sync with a new release regarding
stuff like descriptions of new features, updated user guides, etc.?

It is part of the release process to deploy the site. So it should not
be too much additional effort to prepare this for an RC.

I remember that in past we also had problems with sites that were
updated during development. Then we received bug reports because
features advertised in the documentation were not available in the
released version. So I cannot agree to the statement that a site update
can be done at any time.

Oliver


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Site Builds and Release Votes

Benedikt Ritter-4
In reply to this post by Henri Yandell
The problem I'm seeing with deploying the side as needed is, that the
JavaDoc report will the so latest trunk and not the latest released API. In
[LANG] we have the link to the latest realese JavaDoc. Compress for example
has no such link. So a redeploy (for example to add some more
documentation) will override the JavaDoc report. This may confuse users.
In other words: if the site build and deploy is decoupled from releases,
there should be a link to the JavaDoc of the latest release.

Benedikt


2013/10/13 Henri Yandell <[hidden email]>

> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Luc Maisonobe <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > Le 13/10/2013 17:35, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > in the recent release vote for Compress Gary and I had very different
> > > opinions on the importance of the site build for release candidates.
> > >
> > > On 2013-10-13, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
> > >>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
> > >>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
> > >>> date anyway.
> > >
> > >> - Using the live site for the RC is a bad idea IMO because the source
> > >> will have to be changed to update the version, for example "The
> > >> current release is 1.5." and "Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5"
> > >> and who knows what else will have to be changed. This means that what
> > >> is in the RC is NOT building the 1.6 site, it is building a SNAPSHOT
> > >> site.
> > >
> > > To me creating the site is one of the completely unnecessary steps to
> > > perform when cutting a release candidate.  Building and uploading the
> > > site takes something > 15 minutes to me.  So far I have never published
> > > the RC site when the RC was accepted but rather created a new site
> build
> > > that contained the release date, updated the changes report with a
> > > placeholder for the next release and so on.
> > >
> > > We can - and should - update the site outside of any release anyway, so
> > > to me the site content is completely irrelevant when I evaluate
> > > releases.
> > >
> > > I'll admit that this mirrors my suspicion that nobody looks at the site
> > > build contained in the binary release anyway.  People use their
> > > dependency manager of choice and the online docs in my experience.
> > >
> > > How do others think about the release candidate site build?
> >
> > I agree the site build is orthogonal to release.
> > The main thing we release is source code. Then on top of that we add
> > some binaries, but it is already a by-product. The site itself is not
> > something we should consider to be in the scope of the release.
> >
> >
>  Agreed - the site build as a whole is for informative purposes during a
> vote. If there are any bugs in a site, they never block the release as they
> can be fixed out of band.
>
> The only items that should be blockers on the site build are those included
> in the distribution. I thought that was only the javadoc instead of the
> whole site? I'd definitely consider a bad javadoc to be something we should
> consider a new RC for, though it would depend on the severity. The cost of
> building a new RC is greater than fixing a typo in javadoc.
>
> Hen
>



--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

Phil Steitz
In reply to this post by Stefan Bodewig
On 10/12/13 10:31 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> Hi
>
> since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added
> read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support
> for 7z.
>
> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
> date anyway.
>
> Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here:
>     https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/
>     (svn revision 3254)
>
>   Maven artifacts are here:
>     https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/
>
>   Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes:
>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>
>   The tag is here:
>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/
>     (svn revision 1531616)
>
>   Site:
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/
>
>   Clirr Report (compared to 1.5):
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html
>
>   RAT Report:
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html
>
>   KEYS:
>   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>          
>   Please review the release candidate and vote.
>   This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530
>   GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of
>   this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday.
>
>   [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>   [ ] +0 OK, but...
>   [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>   [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...

+0
Code builds fine for me on OSX 1.7.0_21-b12
Jar, tarball contents, notice, license look fine.
Sigs, hashes are good.
+0 instead of +1 because the title on the release notes is incorrect
- should be 1.6.

One thing to verify:  the manifest says the build was done using
1.6.0_27.  Is that recent enough to include the fix for the javadoc
XSS vulnerabilty?

Phil

Phil
>
>   Thanks!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

Oliver Heger-3
In reply to this post by Stefan Bodewig
The artifacts look good, the build works fine with Java 1.7 on Windows
7. I tried to build with Java 1.5, but got:

Tests in error:

SevenZTestCase.testSevenZArchiveCreationUsingLZMA2:37->testSevenZArchiveCreati
on:59 ╗ OutOfMemory
  XZTestCase.testXZCreation:44 ╗ OutOfMemory Java heap space

Tests run: 374, Failures: 0, Errors: 2, Skipped: 0

ISTR that I had similar problems with other [compress] releases, so I
don't consider this as blocking.

However, I found the following problems:

The title in the release notes says "Apache Commons Compress 1.5 RELEASE
NOTES"; it refers to the old version. I think, this requires another RC.

The RC was built using Java 1.6.0_27. Does this version already contain
the Javadoc security fix?

When I build the site locally, I get a different clirr report showing 9
errors because some public methods have been made final.

Oliver

Am 13.10.2013 07:31, schrieb Stefan Bodewig:

> Hi
>
> since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added
> read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support
> for 7z.
>
> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
> date anyway.
>
> Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here:
>     https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/
>     (svn revision 3254)
>
>   Maven artifacts are here:
>     https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/
>
>   Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes:
>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>
>   The tag is here:
>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/
>     (svn revision 1531616)
>
>   Site:
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/
>
>   Clirr Report (compared to 1.5):
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html
>
>   RAT Report:
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html
>
>   KEYS:
>   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>          
>   Please review the release candidate and vote.
>   This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530
>   GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of
>   this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday.
>
>   [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>   [ ] +0 OK, but...
>   [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>   [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>
>   Thanks!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

Phil Steitz
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
On 10/13/13 12:39 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:

> On 10/12/13 10:31 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added
>> read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support
>> for 7z.
>>
>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
>> date anyway.
>>
>> Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here:
>>     https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/
>>     (svn revision 3254)
>>
>>   Maven artifacts are here:
>>     https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/
>>
>>   Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes:
>>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>>
>>   The tag is here:
>>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/
>>     (svn revision 1531616)
>>
>>   Site:
>>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/
>>
>>   Clirr Report (compared to 1.5):
>>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html
>>
>>   RAT Report:
>>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html
>>
>>   KEYS:
>>   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>          
>>   Please review the release candidate and vote.
>>   This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530
>>   GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of
>>   this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday.
>>
>>   [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>>   [ ] +0 OK, but...
>>   [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>>   [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
> +0
> Code builds fine for me on OSX 1.7.0_21-b12
> Jar, tarball contents, notice, license look fine.
> Sigs, hashes are good.
> +0 instead of +1 because the title on the release notes is incorrect
> - should be 1.6.
>
> One thing to verify:  the manifest says the build was done using
> 1.6.0_27.  Is that recent enough to include the fix for the javadoc
> XSS vulnerabilty?

I am sorry.  I forgot one other thing to verify.  The clirr report
complains about dropping a field.  Is this spurious / not really an
issue?

Phil

>
> Phil
>
> Phil
>>   Thanks!
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

Olivier Lamy
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
--
Olivier
On Oct 14, 2013 6:39 AM, "Phil Steitz" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 10/12/13 10:31 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added
> > read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support
> > for 7z.
> >
> > I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
> > website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
> > immediately change the site after the release to include the release
> > date anyway.
> >
> > Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here:
> >     https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/
> >     (svn revision 3254)
> >
> >   Maven artifacts are here:
> >
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/
> >
> >   Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes:
> >
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
> >
> >   The tag is here:
> >
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/

> >     (svn revision 1531616)
> >
> >   Site:
> >     http://commons.apache.org/compress/
> >
> >   Clirr Report (compared to 1.5):
> >     http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html
> >
> >   RAT Report:
> >     http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html
> >
> >   KEYS:
> >   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
> >
> >   Please review the release candidate and vote.
> >   This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530
> >   GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of
> >   this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday.
> >
> >   [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
> >   [ ] +0 OK, but...
> >   [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
> >   [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>
> +0
> Code builds fine for me on OSX 1.7.0_21-b12
> Jar, tarball contents, notice, license look fine.
> Sigs, hashes are good.
> +0 instead of +1 because the title on the release notes is incorrect
> - should be 1.6.
>
> One thing to verify:  the manifest says the build was done using
> 1.6.0_27.  Is that recent enough to include the fix for the javadoc
> XSS vulnerabilty?

Last maven javadoc plugin fix that without jdk requirement

>
> Phil
>
> Phil
> >
> >   Thanks!
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

Olivier Lamy
In reply to this post by Stefan Bodewig
+1

--
Olivier
On Oct 13, 2013 4:32 PM, "Stefan Bodewig" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added
> read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support
> for 7z.
>
> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
> date anyway.
>
> Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here:
>     https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/
>     (svn revision 3254)
>
>   Maven artifacts are here:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/
>
>   Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>
>   The tag is here:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/
>     (svn revision 1531616)
>
>   Site:
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/
>
>   Clirr Report (compared to 1.5):
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html
>
>   RAT Report:
>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html
>
>   KEYS:
>   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>
>   Please review the release candidate and vote.
>   This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530
>   GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of
>   this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday.
>
>   [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>   [ ] +0 OK, but...
>   [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>   [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>
>   Thanks!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
On 13 October 2013 20:43, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/13/13 12:39 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 10/12/13 10:31 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added
>>> read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support
>>> for 7z.
>>>
>>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
>>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
>>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
>>> date anyway.
>>>
>>> Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here:
>>>     https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/
>>>     (svn revision 3254)
>>>
>>>   Maven artifacts are here:
>>>     https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/
>>>
>>>   Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes:
>>>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>>>
>>>   The tag is here:
>>>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/
>>>     (svn revision 1531616)
>>>
>>>   Site:
>>>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/
>>>
>>>   Clirr Report (compared to 1.5):
>>>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html
>>>
>>>   RAT Report:
>>>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html
>>>
>>>   KEYS:
>>>   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>>
>>>   Please review the release candidate and vote.
>>>   This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530
>>>   GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of
>>>   this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday.
>>>
>>>   [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>>>   [ ] +0 OK, but...
>>>   [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>>>   [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>> +0
>> Code builds fine for me on OSX 1.7.0_21-b12
>> Jar, tarball contents, notice, license look fine.
>> Sigs, hashes are good.
>> +0 instead of +1 because the title on the release notes is incorrect
>> - should be 1.6.
>>
>> One thing to verify:  the manifest says the build was done using
>> 1.6.0_27.  Is that recent enough to include the fix for the javadoc
>> XSS vulnerabilty?
>
> I am sorry.  I forgot one other thing to verify.  The clirr report
> complains about dropping a field.  Is this spurious / not really an
> issue?

Depends.

It's certainly not strictly binary (or source) conpatible.

But whether it is an issue depends on whether any 3rd party code is
using it or not.

> Phil
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> Phil
>>>   Thanks!
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Site Builds and Release Votes

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by Benedikt Ritter-4
On 13 October 2013 20:26, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The problem I'm seeing with deploying the side as needed is, that the
> JavaDoc report will the so latest trunk and not the latest released API. In
> [LANG] we have the link to the latest realese JavaDoc. Compress for example
> has no such link. So a redeploy (for example to add some more
> documentation) will override the JavaDoc report. This may confuse users.
> In other words: if the site build and deploy is decoupled from releases,
> there should be a link to the JavaDoc of the latest release.

+1

I think the site should reflect the current release(s).
That does not mean it cannot be updated post-release, e.g. to correct
errors / improve the documentation.
But it's very confusing to have a site that contains documentation for
code that has not been released.

What we do on the JMeter project is to create an SVN branch for the
documentation.
Any necessary changes are applied to the branch (and trunk if
relevant) and the site regenerated from the branch.

> Benedikt
>
>
> 2013/10/13 Henri Yandell <[hidden email]>
>
>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Luc Maisonobe <[hidden email]
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Le 13/10/2013 17:35, Stefan Bodewig a écrit :
>> > > Hi all
>> > >
>> > > in the recent release vote for Compress Gary and I had very different
>> > > opinions on the importance of the site build for release candidates.
>> > >
>> > > On 2013-10-13, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
>> > >>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
>> > >>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
>> > >>> date anyway.
>> > >
>> > >> - Using the live site for the RC is a bad idea IMO because the source
>> > >> will have to be changed to update the version, for example "The
>> > >> current release is 1.5." and "Commons Compress 1.5 requires Java 5"
>> > >> and who knows what else will have to be changed. This means that what
>> > >> is in the RC is NOT building the 1.6 site, it is building a SNAPSHOT
>> > >> site.
>> > >
>> > > To me creating the site is one of the completely unnecessary steps to
>> > > perform when cutting a release candidate.  Building and uploading the
>> > > site takes something > 15 minutes to me.  So far I have never published
>> > > the RC site when the RC was accepted but rather created a new site
>> build
>> > > that contained the release date, updated the changes report with a
>> > > placeholder for the next release and so on.
>> > >
>> > > We can - and should - update the site outside of any release anyway, so
>> > > to me the site content is completely irrelevant when I evaluate
>> > > releases.
>> > >
>> > > I'll admit that this mirrors my suspicion that nobody looks at the site
>> > > build contained in the binary release anyway.  People use their
>> > > dependency manager of choice and the online docs in my experience.
>> > >
>> > > How do others think about the release candidate site build?
>> >
>> > I agree the site build is orthogonal to release.
>> > The main thing we release is source code. Then on top of that we add
>> > some binaries, but it is already a by-product. The site itself is not
>> > something we should consider to be in the scope of the release.
>> >
>> >
>>  Agreed - the site build as a whole is for informative purposes during a
>> vote. If there are any bugs in a site, they never block the release as they
>> can be fixed out of band.
>>
>> The only items that should be blockers on the site build are those included
>> in the distribution. I thought that was only the javadoc instead of the
>> whole site? I'd definitely consider a bad javadoc to be something we should
>> consider a new RC for, though it would depend on the severity. The cost of
>> building a new RC is greater than fixing a typo in javadoc.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> http://github.com/britter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

garydgregory
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 7:38 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 13 October 2013 20:43, Phil Steitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 10/13/13 12:39 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 10/12/13 10:31 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> since Compress 1.5 we've fixed a few bugs but most notably added
>>>> read-only support for LZMA standalone, uncompressed ARJ and full support
>>>> for 7z.
>>>>
>>>> I have not created a RC website as the only difference to the current
>>>> website would be the download page and the version number - and I'd
>>>> immediately change the site after the release to include the release
>>>> date anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Foo 1.2 RC1 is available for review here:
>>>>     https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/
>>>>     (svn revision 3254)
>>>>
>>>>   Maven artifacts are here:
>>>>     https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-167/org/apache/commons/commons-compress/1.6/
>>>>
>>>>   Details of changes since 1.5 are in the release notes:
>>>>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>>>>
>>>>   The tag is here:
>>>>     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/compress/tags/COMPRESS-1.6-RC1/
>>>>     (svn revision 1531616)
>>>>
>>>>   Site:
>>>>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/
>>>>
>>>>   Clirr Report (compared to 1.5):
>>>>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/clirr-report.html
>>>>
>>>>   RAT Report:
>>>>     http://commons.apache.org/compress/rat-report.html
>>>>
>>>>   KEYS:
>>>>   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>>>
>>>>   Please review the release candidate and vote.
>>>>   This vote will close no sooner that 72 hours from now, i.e. after 0530
>>>>   GMT 16-October 2013 - given that I'll be traveling the second half of
>>>>   this week I'd rather expect the release to happen next Saturday.
>>>>
>>>>   [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
>>>>   [ ] +0 OK, but...
>>>>   [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
>>>>   [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>>> +0
>>> Code builds fine for me on OSX 1.7.0_21-b12
>>> Jar, tarball contents, notice, license look fine.
>>> Sigs, hashes are good.
>>> +0 instead of +1 because the title on the release notes is incorrect
>>> - should be 1.6.
>>>
>>> One thing to verify:  the manifest says the build was done using
>>> 1.6.0_27.  Is that recent enough to include the fix for the javadoc
>>> XSS vulnerabilty?
>>
>> I am sorry.  I forgot one other thing to verify.  The clirr report
>> complains about dropping a field.  Is this spurious / not really an
>> issue?
>
> Depends.
>
> It's certainly not strictly binary (or source) conpatible.
>
> But whether it is an issue depends on whether any 3rd party code is
> using it or not.

Which there is not way of knowing :( Are the dropped fields private?

Gary

>
>> Phil
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>   Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
Spring Batch in Action
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Compress 1.6

Stefan Bodewig
In reply to this post by Phil Steitz
On 2013-10-13, Phil Steitz wrote:

> I am sorry.  I forgot one other thing to verify.  The clirr report
> complains about dropping a field.  Is this spurious / not really an
> issue?

Ah yes, I should have talked about that.

It is a protected field in the Tar*Stream classes which should have
never been protected but was for hisorical reasons.

When the change was made a few month ago we concluded it would be
extremely unlikely that subclasses of said streams existed that used it,
in particular since the type of the protected field was a package
private class (TarBuffer).

The implementation has been changed considerably and the TarBuffer class
has even been removed - so if this change blocks the release the only
mitigation will be to revert the changes completely.  I'm fully prepared
to do that, if necessary.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12