[VOTE] Release Shale 1.0.5

[Greg Reddin-4]

A set of artifacts for Shale 1.0.5 is now ready. Please review the
artifacts mentioned below and vote accordingly. Since this is my first
time as release manager I wouldn't be surprised if something is
missing or if I've included things that shouldn't be included, so I'd
appreciate as thorough a review as you have time for. In particular I
see a lot of Maven artifacts and zip files that were not included in
previous releases so I wonder if they are meant to be release (the
*test* artifacts for example).

(1) The repository has been tagged here:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shale/framework/tags/SHALE_1_0_5/

(2) The Maven artifacts are staged here:

 http://people.apache.org/builds/shale/shale-1.0.5/m2-staging-repository/

 org.apache.shale.extras:mailreader-jpa:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-application:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-apps-parent:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-blank:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-clay-usecases:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-clay:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-core:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-dialog-basic:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-dialog-scxml:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-dialog:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-mailreader-jpa:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-mailreader:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-parent:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-remoting:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-spring:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-sql-browser:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-test-core:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-test-dialog-basic:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-test-dialog-scxml:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-test-tiger:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-blank:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-test-view:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-tiger:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-usecases:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-validator:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-view:1.0.5

(3) The release artifacts are available here:

 http://people.apache.org/builds/shale/shale-1.0.5/dist/

mailreader-jpa-1.0.5.zip
shale-blank-1.0.5.zip
shale-clay-usecases-1.0.5.zip
shale-framework-1.0.5.zip
shale-mailreader-1.0.5.zip
shale-mailreader-jpa-1.0.5.zip
shale-sql-browser-1.0.5.zip
shale-test-core-1.0.5.zip
shale-test-dialog-basic-1.0.5.zip
shale-test-dialog-scxml-1.0.5.zip
shale-test-tiger-1.0.5.zip
shale-test-view-1.0.5.zip
shale-usecases-1.0.5.zip

(4) The release notes are here, for ready reference:

 http://people.apache.org/~greddin/release-notes-1.0.5.html

(5) Vote

Please review these artifacts, signatures and checksums, and vote
whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.5.

--8<--------------------------------------------
[ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only
[ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released
------------------------------------------------

A quality vote (per module, where necessary) will be held later on if
this passes.

Thank you!!
Greg

[Paul Spencer-3]

Greg,
I may be getting ahead of the processes, but below is what I have tested
with My applications.

+1 for shale-dialog-basic
+1 for shale-dialog-scxml

-1 The copyright date in the notice file is 2007 instead of 2008
Aside from the copyright date, noted above, I only verified that
notice.txt, manifest.mf and license.txt existed

The artifact where built using JDK 1.5.0_13.  Should they be built using
1.4?

I used the staged artifacts for testing.  In addition I have request the
Myfaces folks run this version of shale when testing Tomahawk.

Paul Spencer



Greg Reddin wrote:

> A set of artifacts for Shale 1.0.5 is now ready. Please review the
> artifacts mentioned below and vote accordingly. Since this is my first
> time as release manager I wouldn't be surprised if something is
> missing or if I've included things that shouldn't be included, so I'd
> appreciate as thorough a review as you have time for. In particular I
> see a lot of Maven artifacts and zip files that were not included in
> previous releases so I wonder if they are meant to be release (the
> *test* artifacts for example).
>
> (1) The repository has been tagged here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shale/framework/tags/SHALE_1_0_5/
>
> (2) The Maven artifacts are staged here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/builds/shale/shale-1.0.5/m2-staging-repository/
>
>  org.apache.shale.extras:mailreader-jpa:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-application:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-apps-parent:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-blank:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-clay-usecases:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-clay:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-core:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-dialog-basic:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-dialog-scxml:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-dialog:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-mailreader-jpa:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-mailreader:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-parent:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-remoting:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-spring:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-sql-browser:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-test-core:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-test-dialog-basic:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-test-dialog-scxml:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-test-tiger:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-blank:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-test-view:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-tiger:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-usecases:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-validator:1.0.5
>  org.apache.shale:shale-view:1.0.5
>
> (3) The release artifacts are available here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/builds/shale/shale-1.0.5/dist/
>
> mailreader-jpa-1.0.5.zip
> shale-blank-1.0.5.zip
> shale-clay-usecases-1.0.5.zip
> shale-framework-1.0.5.zip
> shale-mailreader-1.0.5.zip
> shale-mailreader-jpa-1.0.5.zip
> shale-sql-browser-1.0.5.zip
> shale-test-core-1.0.5.zip
> shale-test-dialog-basic-1.0.5.zip
> shale-test-dialog-scxml-1.0.5.zip
> shale-test-tiger-1.0.5.zip
> shale-test-view-1.0.5.zip
> shale-usecases-1.0.5.zip
>
> (4) The release notes are here, for ready reference:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~greddin/release-notes-1.0.5.html
>
> (5) Vote
>
> Please review these artifacts, signatures and checksums, and vote
> whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.5.
>
> --8<--------------------------------------------
> [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only
> [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> A quality vote (per module, where necessary) will be held later on if
> this passes.
>
> Thank you!!
> Greg
>

[Greg Reddin-4]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Paul Spencer <paulsp@...> wrote:
> -1 The copyright date in the notice file is 2007 instead of 2008
> Aside from the copyright date, noted above, I only verified that notice.txt,
> manifest.mf and license.txt existed

I'll have a look at that.

>
> The artifact where built using JDK 1.5.0_13.  Should they be built using
> 1.4?

Hmm, I didn't think about that. You're probably right, at least
everything except the Tiger stuff. Rahul, did you use 1.4 to build the
non-Tiger artifacts for 1.0.4?

Thanks for checking. I figured there's little chance this first hack
would be the final one :-)

Greg

[Wendy Smoak-3]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Paul Spencer <paulsp@...> wrote:

> -1 The copyright date in the notice file is 2007 instead of 2008
> Aside from the copyright date, noted above, I only verified that notice.txt,
> manifest.mf and license.txt existed

Probably needs to be fixed, though I could argue that If there haven't
been any significant code changes this year, then 2007 may be correct.
 The copyright date starts when something is created, and I'm not sure
packaging existing stuff==creation.  I wouldn't stop the release
because of this if it's the only problem.

> The artifact where built using JDK 1.5.0_13.  Should they be built using 1.4?

I trust the 1.5 compiler to properly create 1.4 jars, assuming we have
the compiler plugin configured correctly to target 1.4.  Otherwise,
since the tiger module _must_ be built with 1.5, you'd have to release
it separately.  I don't recally having to do that, but it's been a
long time.

Thanks for looking it over!

--
Wendy

[Rahul Akolkar]

On 6/2/08, Greg Reddin <gredbug@...> wrote:
> A set of artifacts for Shale 1.0.5 is now ready. Please review the
>  artifacts mentioned below and vote accordingly. Since this is my first
>  time as release manager I wouldn't be surprised if something is
>  missing or if I've included things that shouldn't be included, so I'd
>  appreciate as thorough a review as you have time for. In particular I
>  see a lot of Maven artifacts and zip files that were not included in
>  previous releases so I wonder if they are meant to be release (the
>  *test* artifacts for example).
>
<snip/>

Thanks for putting the bits together Greg!

Two high-level comments:

1) The *test* artifacts aren't meant to be distributed via releases,
or used for anything beyond local testing, IIRC. (the usecases apps
are meant to demo features). I would prefer we leave them out, to
avoid many differences in this point release. You should be able to
just blow those *test* directories / artifacts away in the m2 staging
repo / dist area.

2) In the ballot below, can you please revise the first couple of
lines to read ...

[ ] +1 for beta release (Binding, PMC members only)
[ ] +1 for beta release (community members who have reviewed the bits)

... or some such. The important bit is to note the initial quality as
beta. This is one of the things I did not do when posting the CfV for
v1.0.4 (and we had to clarify that in a separate thread later). This
way the release announcement can state the initial quality to be beta
(and that it will potentially be revised later).

Also, I think we can even do away with the PMC / otherwise distinction
in the ballot. I'll leave that to you.

These changes are fairly superficial, so shouldn't require any
rebuilding (and this vote thread can continue, IMO).

-Rahul

>
>  (5) Vote
>
>  Please review these artifacts, signatures and checksums, and vote
>  whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.5.
>
>  --8<--------------------------------------------
>  [ ] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only
>  [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits
>  [ ] +0
>  [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released
>  ------------------------------------------------
>
>  A quality vote (per module, where necessary) will be held later on if
>  this passes.
>
>  Thank you!!
>
> Greg
>

[Rahul Akolkar]

On 6/4/08, Greg Reddin <gredbug@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Paul Spencer <paulsp@...> wrote:
<snip/>
>  >
>  > The artifact where built using JDK 1.5.0_13.  Should they be built using
>  > 1.4?
>
>
> Hmm, I didn't think about that. You're probably right, at least
>  everything except the Tiger stuff. Rahul, did you use 1.4 to build the
>  non-Tiger artifacts for 1.0.4?
>
<snap/>

No, I used 1.5, you did the right thing. At the time however, I had
verified that everything that needs to be 1.4 compliant actually is.
You can do this by running a build on the 1.0.5 tag using 1.4, but
first comment out all the modules that need 1.5 (also, no need to use
-Prelease etc., just ensure the framework jars build).

-Rahul

[Rahul Akolkar]

On 6/4/08, Wendy Smoak <wsmoak@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Paul Spencer <paulsp@...> wrote:
>
>  > -1 The copyright date in the notice file is 2007 instead of 2008
>  > Aside from the copyright date, noted above, I only verified that notice.txt,
>  > manifest.mf and license.txt existed
>
>
> Probably needs to be fixed, though I could argue that If there haven't
>  been any significant code changes this year, then 2007 may be correct.
>   The copyright date starts when something is created, and I'm not sure
>  packaging existing stuff==creation.  I wouldn't stop the release
>  because of this if it's the only problem.
>

<snip/>

Yup, I wouldn't either.

-Rahul

[Greg Reddin-4]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@...> wrote:
> 1) The *test* artifacts aren't meant to be distributed via releases,
> or used for anything beyond local testing, IIRC. (the usecases apps
> are meant to demo features). I would prefer we leave them out, to
> avoid many differences in this point release. You should be able to
> just blow those *test* directories / artifacts away in the m2 staging
> repo / dist area.

Thanks, Rahul. Just to clarify, you're suggesting that we include the
usecase apps in the release, but *not* include the *-test artifacts
(except the ones that are core, like shale-test itself), correct?

> ... or some such. The important bit is to note the initial quality as
> beta. This is one of the things I did not do when posting the CfV for
> v1.0.4 (and we had to clarify that in a separate thread later). This
> way the release announcement can state the initial quality to be beta
> (and that it will potentially be revised later).

I don't have a problem with that. IIRC, other projects (Struts, Tiles)
don't specify the quality at all until after the release is posted.
They just push a release and later declare it alpha, beta, or GA. I
don't mind specifying initially that this will be beta if that makes
people more comfortable voting.

Thanks,
Greg

[Rahul Akolkar]

On 6/5/08, Greg Reddin <gredbug@...> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@...> wrote:
>  > 1) The *test* artifacts aren't meant to be distributed via releases,
>  > or used for anything beyond local testing, IIRC. (the usecases apps
>  > are meant to demo features). I would prefer we leave them out, to
>  > avoid many differences in this point release. You should be able to
>  > just blow those *test* directories / artifacts away in the m2 staging
>  > repo / dist area.
>
>
> Thanks, Rahul. Just to clarify, you're suggesting that we include the
>  usecase apps in the release, but *not* include the *-test artifacts
>  (except the ones that are core, like shale-test itself), correct?
>

<snip/>

Yes, so the list of artifacts in v1.0.4 listed here (except obvious
changes such as shale-tiles):

  http://markmail.org/message/kpy7tlfj6m2xq7e6

>  > ... or some such. The important bit is to note the initial quality as
>  > beta. This is one of the things I did not do when posting the CfV for
>  > v1.0.4 (and we had to clarify that in a separate thread later). This
>  > way the release announcement can state the initial quality to be beta
>  > (and that it will potentially be revised later).
>
>
> I don't have a problem with that. IIRC, other projects (Struts, Tiles)
>  don't specify the quality at all until after the release is posted.
>  They just push a release and later declare it alpha, beta, or GA. I
>  don't mind specifying initially that this will be beta if that makes
>  people more comfortable voting.
>

<snap/>

I have a slight preference for starting with a beta, but its your call
:-) That won't affect my vote (I intend to check the artifacts by
Saturday).

-Rahul

[Rahul Akolkar]

On 6/2/08, Greg Reddin <gredbug@...> wrote:
<snip/>

>
>  (5) Vote
>
>  Please review these artifacts, signatures and checksums, and vote
>  whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.5.
>
>  --8<--------------------------------------------
>  [X] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only
>  [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits
>  [ ] +0
>  [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released
>  ------------------------------------------------
>

<snap/>

Sporadically checked a few sums, sigs, manifests, LICENSE / NOTICE
files. Tried out the dialog test apps (not to be released, see para
below), and also the shale-blank, shale-usecases and
shale-clay-usecases apps.

The shale-test-* artifacts mentioned earlier in this thread do not
contain the LICENSE / NOTICE files and so I think its important we
don't release them (as already discussed). Please take care of this
when / before you move the staged artifacts.

The "New Style Remoting Support" links in shale-usecases app initially
404'd (seemed to work after I tried some other stuff) -- it'd be great
if someone can check those so theres no regression (theres also a
trace from the "Form completion" Ajax example though it works). I used
Tomcat 5.5.17.

I'm traveling for a week, starting now, and will have limited email time.

-Rahul



>  A quality vote (per module, where necessary) will be held later on if
>  this passes.
>
>  Thank you!!
>
> Greg
>

[Greg Reddin-4]

This is a resubmit of the Shale 1.0.5 release vote. (Sorry for the
delayed posting). I've modified the set of artifacts to the list below.

(1) The repository has been tagged here (I did not modify the tag):

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shale/framework/tags/SHALE_1_0_5/

(2) The Maven artifacts are staged here:

 http://people.apache.org/builds/shale/shale-1.0.5/m2-staging-repository/

 org.apache.shale.extras:mailreader-jpa:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-application:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-apps-parent:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-blank:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-clay-usecases:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-clay:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-core:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-dialog-basic:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-dialog-scxml:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-dialog:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-mailreader-jpa:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-mailreader:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-parent:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-remoting:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-spring:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-sql-browser:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-blank:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-tiger:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-usecases:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-validator:1.0.5
 org.apache.shale:shale-view:1.0.5

(3) The release artifacts are available here:

 http://people.apache.org/builds/shale/shale-1.0.5/dist/

mailreader-jpa-1.0.5.zip
shale-blank-1.0.5.zip
shale-clay-usecases-1.0.5.zip
shale-framework-1.0.5.zip
shale-mailreader-1.0.5.zip
shale-mailreader-jpa-1.0.5.zip
shale-sql-browser-1.0.5.zip
shale-usecases-1.0.5.zip

(4) The release notes are here, for ready reference:

 http://people.apache.org/~greddin/release-notes-1.0.5.html

(5) Vote

Please review these artifacts, signatures and checksums, and vote
whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.5.

--8<--------------------------------------------
[ ] +1 Release these artifacts as Shale 1.0.5
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released
------------------------------------------------

A quality vote (per module, where necessary) will be held later on if
this passes.

Thank you!!
Greg

[Greg Reddin-4]

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Greg Reddin <gredbug@...> wrote:
>
> --8<--------------------------------------------
> [X] +1 Release these artifacts as Shale 1.0.5
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released
> ------------------------------------------------
>

Here's my vote.
Greg

PS. I will be out of town Wednesday thru Monday. If the vote passes I
will likely have to wait till I get back to finish the release. I'm
not exactly sure what all I need to do to push the release artifacts
to the mirrors. (I think I understand the Maven artifacts). Can
someone direct me to some doc and/or instructions?