On 16 August 2013 14:27, sebb wrote:
> On 16 August 2013 13:44, Stephen Connolly
> wrote:
> > r1514680
> >
> > Does that, coupled with the knowledge that our source release bundles are
> > *supposed to* include the tag details that they were built from resolve
> > your issue?
>
> Sorry, but no.
On 16 August 2013 13:44, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> r1514680
>
> Does that, coupled with the knowledge that our source release bundles are
> *supposed to* include the tag details that they were built from resolve
> your issue?
Sorry, but no.
As I see it, release votes should be independent of the
r1514680
Does that, coupled with the knowledge that our source release bundles are
*supposed to* include the tag details that they were built from resolve
your issue?
(Obviously there is more tooling we can add... for instance I suspect that
for GIT we are not including the git hash that release:
On 16 August 2013 13:08, Fred Cooke wrote:
> They're deployed as a set, so what I want is the SHA1 or even MD5 of any
> one of the set of uploaded files, such that I can confirm that the set is
> the set that I am supposed to be looking at. I don't see importance in
> which, but I've not thought a
They're deployed as a set, so what I want is the SHA1 or even MD5 of any
one of the set of uploaded files, such that I can confirm that the set is
the set that I am supposed to be looking at. I don't see importance in
which, but I've not thought about it much. I think *all* would be huge
overkill.
That sounds like you are looking for the SHA1 sum of the source bundle to
be included in the vote email. Which would seem perfectly reasonable to me.
On 16 August 2013 12:31, Fred Cooke wrote:
> Dennis, of course source bundles will contain URLs and hashes and revisions
> and so forth, and th
Dennis, of course source bundles will contain URLs and hashes and revisions
and so forth, and the chance of those being mismatched is approximately
zero. That's not the point.
The point (for me, at least) is what did you INTEND to release, and does
THAT match what is actually found in the bundle (
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:24 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 16 August 2013 09:32, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 August 2013 08:10, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, sebb wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 15 August 2013 20:57,
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Fred Cooke wrote:
> Dennis, I've been using (and mostly loving) the release plugin/process for
> the better part of a decade and certainly claim to understand it well. I
> don't see how my knowledge of that (or Sebb's perceived lack of knowledge
> of that) is in
On 16 August 2013 09:32, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 16 August 2013 08:10, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, sebb wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 15 August 2013 20:57, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:27
Dennis, I've been using (and mostly loving) the release plugin/process for
the better part of a decade and certainly claim to understand it well. I
don't see how my knowledge of that (or Sebb's perceived lack of knowledge
of that) is in any way relevant. The release plugin means it's harder to do
s
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 16 August 2013 08:10, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 15 August 2013 20:57, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM, sebb wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 15 August 2013 14:16,
On 16 August 2013 08:10, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 15 August 2013 20:57, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM, sebb wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 15 August 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> >> > What Sebb is doing is perfectly
I don't think Sebb has been under attack. Certainly I know I have tried my
best to craft my replies such that it is the ideas and not the person. The
one time I used "troll" and "Sebb" in the same sentence it was when I
pointed out that if he continued to not address the PMCs responses and
instead
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Fred Cooke wrote:
> Chances of understanding me:
>
>- Close friend: 50%
>- Other friend: 25%
>- Kiwi: 15%
>- Ozzy: 10% (that's you)
>- POHM: 8%
>- Yank: 5%
>- Spaniard: 1%
>
> So don't feel too bad, you had a 90% chance of failure stack
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 15 August 2013 20:57, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 15 August 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >> > What Sebb is doing is perfectly reasonable.
> >>
> >
> > I agree. Checking that the sour
Chances of understanding me:
- Close friend: 50%
- Other friend: 25%
- Kiwi: 15%
- Ozzy: 10% (that's you)
- POHM: 8%
- Yank: 5%
- Spaniard: 1%
So don't feel too bad, you had a 90% chance of failure stacked against you
;-)
I'd dearly love to contribute, but I will not and can
On 16 August 2013 08:54, Fred Cooke wrote:
> It's funny that you cite "no time" and use the equivalent of 299.5 6 digit
> revision numbers to send us an email on your lack of time. You could have
> done 299 releases to Sebb's quite reasonable standards with that much
> keyboard activity. Point mad
It's funny that you cite "no time" and use the equivalent of 299.5 6 digit
revision numbers to send us an email on your lack of time. You could have
done 299 releases to Sebb's quite reasonable standards with that much
keyboard activity. Point made? :-p
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Olivier Lam
On 15 August 2013 20:57, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 15 August 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> > What Sebb is doing is perfectly reasonable.
>>
>
> I agree. Checking that the source bundle is correct is good release review
> practice.
>
> Tha
On 15 August 2013 18:50, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
>> On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb wrote:
>>> On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> >
Firstly, I'm not heated up, so I can not cool down, without going into
hypothermia.
Secondly, I never said that *you* were doing that, just that it was being
done.
Thirdly, I'm super glad that you agree SCM and bundles should be compared.
Fourthly, let's get on with the discussion about what it
Hi Fred,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Fred Cooke wrote:
> Actually, I missed exactly nothing!!!
>
> Your process could be flawed. Human errors do happen.
>
The process is not flawed, but people make mistakes.
> The entire point of any review is to not trust process or people, and to
> ch
Actually, I missed exactly nothing!!!
Your process could be flawed. Human errors do happen.
The entire point of any review is to not trust process or people, and to
check everything. You're effectively advocating not doing that, and this
*IS* unhealthy.
I know that with your process on a primary
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Fred Cooke wrote:
> >
> > Right so far?
> >
>
> No, you're not. Step three, in SVN, requires reviewing history to confirm
> no changes were made to that URL *ever*. In Git, step 3 involves knowing
> the hash, as spurious tags have already been known to circulate.
>
> Right so far?
>
No, you're not. Step three, in SVN, requires reviewing history to confirm
no changes were made to that URL *ever*. In Git, step 3 involves knowing
the hash, as spurious tags have already been known to circulate.
Even if all of the details were in the POM, the question still re
Dennis, effectively what is required is a statement like this: "I believe
that I've released XYZ binaries from ABC sources (tarball + N patches, SCM,
whatever)" with enough info to exactly identify what XYZ and ABC are
(checksums, URLs, revisions, etc) without guessing and duplicated
research/looki
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 15 August 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > What Sebb is doing is perfectly reasonable.
>
I agree. Checking that the source bundle is correct is good release review
practice.
Thank you!
>
> > He's trying to assert that everything in the sour
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> > On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb wrote:
> >> On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb wrote:
> >>>
> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg
On 15 August 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> What Sebb is doing is perfectly reasonable.
Thank you!
> He's trying to assert that everything in the source ball actually comes from
> source control and that no errant files have made their way into the
> distribution. Right now we cannot asser
What Sebb is doing is perfectly reasonable.
He's trying to assert that everything in the source ball actually comes from
source control and that no errant files have made their way into the
distribution. Right now we cannot assert that the assembly plugin has not
wandered outside the checkout a
Sent from my iPhone
On 15/08/2013, at 10:05 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 15 August 2013 10:08, Chris Graham wrote:
>> What sebb does not appear to have understood or accepted, as Stephen has
>> endlessly pointed out, is that we vote on the source bundle, not a scm
>> revision, and that, strictly spea
On 15 August 2013 10:08, Chris Graham wrote:
> What sebb does not appear to have understood or accepted, as Stephen has
> endlessly pointed out, is that we vote on the source bundle, not a scm
> revision, and that, strictly speaking a SCM is not even required (however
> sensible it is to use one).
Le 15 août 2013 10:51, "Jörg Schaible" a
écrit :
>
> Hi Oliver,
>
> Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> > On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb wrote:
> >> On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb wrote:
> >>>
> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrot
On 15 August 2013 09:50, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> > On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb wrote:
> >> On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb wrote:
> >>>
> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>
What sebb does not appear to have understood or accepted, as Stephen has
endlessly pointed out, is that we vote on the source bundle, not a scm
revision, and that, strictly speaking a SCM is not even required (however
sensible it is to use one).
He wants a tree and a revision so that we can compar
Hi Oliver,
Olivier Lamy wrote:
> On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb wrote:
>> On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>
On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On
It's NOT trolling... If you feel trolled, grow some skin.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb wrote:
> > On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Denn
On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> >> On 12 August 2013 20:10, Jason van Zyl wrot
On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>> >> On 12 August 2013 20:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> >>>
>> >
>> > I have now read t
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, sebb wrote:
> >> On 12 August 2013 20:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >>>
> >
> > I have now read the threads that are referring to, and have not found
> >>>
On 14 August 2013 12:01, sebb wrote:
>
> As a member of the ASF, I do think it's my problem if software is
> being released in the name of the ASF.
>
> The ASF is about transparency - "if it did not happen on a public
> mailing list then it did not happen".
>
> It should be possible for anyone to
On 14 August 2013 11:13, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 10:45, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 14 August 2013 10:23, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>> > On 14 August 2013 09:47, sebb wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, sebb wro
On 14 August 2013 10:45, sebb wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 10:23, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > On 14 August 2013 09:47, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, sebb wrote:
> >> >> On 12 August 2013 20:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 14 August 2013 10:23, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 09:47, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>> >> On 12 August 2013 20:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> >>>
>> >
>> > I have now read the threa
On 14 August 2013 09:47, sebb wrote:
> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, sebb wrote:
> >> On 12 August 2013 20:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >>>
> >
> > I have now read the threads that are referring to, and have not found
> > a sing
On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 12 August 2013 20:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>
>
> I have now read the threads that are referring to, and have not found
> a single link to any ASF rule stating that we need to inclu
Where, and also when; don't forget that. This is old news, but a pat on
sebb's back for beating the stick regardless of how much it seems to
irritate everyone to hear that noise.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, sebb wrote:
> > On 12 Au
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:30 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 12 August 2013 20:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
I have now read the threads that are referring to, and have not found
a single link to any ASF rule stating that we need to include these
things in a VOTE thread.
>>>
>>> So how do
On 12 August 2013 20:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I have now read the threads that are referring to, and have not found
>>> a single link to any ASF rule stating that we need to include these
>>> things in a VOTE thread.
>>
>> So how do you propose that reviewers check the provenance of the
>>
>> I have now read the threads that are referring to, and have not found
>> a single link to any ASF rule stating that we need to include these
>> things in a VOTE thread.
>
> So how do you propose that reviewers check the provenance of the files
> in the source release?
Are you looking for
On 11 August 2013 15:02, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Dennis Lundberg
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:15 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 25 July 2013 17:50, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 25 July 2013 16:55, Dennis Lu
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Dennis Lundberg
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:15 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 25 July 2013 17:50, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 PM, sebb wrote:
On 25 July 2013 16:55, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Den 25 jul 2013 16:08 skrev "sebb" :
Hi,
The vote has passed with the following result:
+1 (binding): Olivier Lamy, Dennis Lundberg, Stephen Connolly, Hervé Boutemy
I will promote the artifacts to the central repo.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This will be the final release of this shared comp
+1
Regards,
Hervé
Le mardi 23 juillet 2013 21:45:52 Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> This will be the final release of this shared component. After this
> release it will retire from the Apache Maven project and move to the
> Apache Archiva project. See separate vote thread about that.
>
>
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:15 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 25 July 2013 17:50, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 25 July 2013 16:55, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Den 25 jul 2013 16:08 skrev "sebb" :
>
> On 23 July 2013 20:45, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>>
On 25 July 2013 17:50, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 25 July 2013 16:55, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>> Den 25 jul 2013 16:08 skrev "sebb" :
On 23 July 2013 20:45, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This will be the final release
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:34 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 25 July 2013 16:55, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> Den 25 jul 2013 16:08 skrev "sebb" :
>>>
>>> On 23 July 2013 20:45, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > This will be the final release of this shared component. After this
>>> > release it wi
On 25 July 2013 16:55, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Den 25 jul 2013 16:08 skrev "sebb" :
>>
>> On 23 July 2013 20:45, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This will be the final release of this shared component. After this
>> > release it will retire from the Apache Maven project and move to the
Den 25 jul 2013 16:08 skrev "sebb" :
>
> On 23 July 2013 20:45, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This will be the final release of this shared component. After this
> > release it will retire from the Apache Maven project and move to the
> > Apache Archiva project. See separate vote thread a
On 23 July 2013 20:45, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This will be the final release of this shared component. After this
> release it will retire from the Apache Maven project and move to the
> Apache Archiva project. See separate vote thread about that.
>
> We solved 6 issues:
> http://jira.co
+1
On 23 July 2013 20:45, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This will be the final release of this shared component. After this
> release it will retire from the Apache Maven project and move to the
> Apache Archiva project. See separate vote thread about that.
>
> We solved 6 issues:
>
> http:/
+1 from me
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This will be the final release of this shared component. After this
> release it will retire from the Apache Maven project and move to the
> Apache Archiva project. See separate vote thread about that.
>
> We solved 6 is
+1
2013/7/24 Dennis Lundberg :
> Hi,
>
> This will be the final release of this shared component. After this
> release it will retire from the Apache Maven project and move to the
> Apache Archiva project. See separate vote thread about that.
>
> We solved 6 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secu
Hi,
This will be the final release of this shared component. After this
release it will retire from the Apache Maven project and move to the
Apache Archiva project. See separate vote thread about that.
We solved 6 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11761&styleName=
65 matches
Mail list logo
