Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Cactus 1.8.0 Release Candidate

sebb <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.jakarta.general
Message-ID <25aac9fc0804031216j5f165ee4va787333d9a0bcf8b__21845.5423172147$1207250253$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/04/2008, Petar Tahchiev <[email protected]> wrote:
> FYI
>
>
>  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>  From: Petar Tahchiev <[email protected]>
>  Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM
>  Subject: [VOTE] Jakarta Cactus 1.8.0 Release Candidate
>  To: Jakarta General List <[email protected]>
>
>
>  Hi everybody
>
>  I would like to cast a vote on releasing Jakarta Cactus 1.8.0.
>
>  The RC archives are here:
>  http://people.apache.org/dist/jakarta/cactus/1.8.0-RC/
>
>  and the tag that the archives were made of is here:
>  http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/cactus/tags/cactus-1.8.0-rc/
>
>  My vote is below (binding):
>
>  yes [ x ] (+1)
>  no [  ] (-1)
>

Hashes and sigs are OK, though the sig says:

Signature made 04/03/08 19:13:56 using RSA key ID C3110611
Good signature from "Petar Tahchiev <[email protected]>"
                        aka "[invalid image]"

which looks a wee bit odd...

-1:
The descriptors directory structure is missing from the source archive.
AFAIK, this means that the source archive cannot be used to create a
new distribution.

-1:
The binary archive does not include the Javadoc, but it does include the site.
I think that's the wrong way round.

Also various parts of the site documentation seem to be missing:
resources/
goals.hml
features.html
etc
[Obviously the missing bits would not matter if the site was not in the archive]

The cactus.core.framework.uberjar.javaEE.14-1.8.0-rc.jar contains two
copies of the file:

builddef.lst

which should not be there.

The manifest has versions of 1.8.0, which is different from the other 2 jars.

The cactus.integration.ant-1.8.0-rc.jar manifest version is 1.8.0-rc,
which does not agree with the uberjar.

Not quite sure how one manages the versioning/top-level directory name in Maven.

Need to find this out before creating another RC to vote on ...

Sorry to vote -1, but I think it's very close now.

>  Thanks, Petar.
>  --
>  Regards, Petar!
>  Karlovo, Bulgaria.
>
>  EOOXML objections
>  http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections
>
>  Public PGP Key at:
>  http://keyserver.linux.it/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1A15B53B761500F9
>  Key Fingerprint: AA16 8004 AADD 9C76 EF5B 4210 1A15 B53B 7615 00F9
>
>
>
>  --
>  Regards, Petar!
>  Karlovo, Bulgaria.
>
>  EOOXML objections
>  http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections
>
>  Public PGP Key at:
>  http://keyserver.linux.it/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1A15B53B761500F9
>  Key Fingerprint: AA16 8004 AADD 9C76 EF5B 4210 1A15 B53B 7615 00F9
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.