[imaging] Questions about the 1.0-alpha release

[Bruno P. Kinoshita]

Hi all,

I am almost done following the docs to prepare a release. Didn't struggle as much as I expected with the release-plugin. Had more trouble getting the MANIFEST.MF entries corrected.

But now, before I create the dist tag, and upload the zip/tar.gz (this was not executed by the release plugin because... it's a project that uses assembly plugin I think), I would like to confirm a few things

- The version release is 1.0-alpha
- The changes.xml is for 1.0. I found that commons-lang appears to have had a 3.0-beta. The changes.xml contains the entries for 3.0, with an HTML comment showing which changes were added post 3.0-beta. So I did the same for imaging
- RELEASE-NOTES.txt is still saying 1.0... should it be 1.0-alpha?
- What else would need to be updated? The site perhaps??? Or is it OK to have a few places showing 1.0?

I have time to work on the RC1 vote until Monday NZ time this week. So if I manage to get these points sorted, we might be able to call the RC1 vote, and leave it running until the next weekend - or cancel it during the week in case of an error, and then I could prepare RC2 next weekend I think.


Thanks!
Bruno

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org

[Gary Gregory]

I would call it "alpha1" instead of just "alpha".

Gary

Post by Bruno P. Kinoshita
Hi all,
I am almost done following the docs to prepare a release. Didn't struggle
as much as I expected with the release-plugin. Had more trouble getting the
MANIFEST.MF entries corrected.
But now, before I create the dist tag, and upload the zip/tar.gz (this was
not executed by the release plugin because... it's a project that uses
assembly plugin I think), I would like to confirm a few things
- The version release is 1.0-alpha
- The changes.xml is for 1.0. I found that commons-lang appears to have
had a 3.0-beta. The changes.xml contains the entries for 3.0, with an HTML
comment showing which changes were added post 3.0-beta. So I did the same
for imaging
- RELEASE-NOTES.txt is still saying 1.0... should it be 1.0-alpha?
- What else would need to be updated? The site perhaps??? Or is it OK to
have a few places showing 1.0?
I have time to work on the RC1 vote until Monday NZ time this week. So if
I manage to get these points sorted, we might be able to call the RC1 vote,
and leave it running until the next weekend - or cancel it during the week
in case of an error, and then I could prepare RC2 next weekend I think.
Thanks!
Bruno
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bruno P. Kinoshita]

Thanks Gary. Had a bit of spare time today, so tried preparing a new release as alpha1.

Still have a few questions from last e-mail pending, but will call the vote anyway and just re-roll a rc2 later if necessary.

Post by Bruno P. Kinoshita
- RELEASE-NOTES.txt is still saying 1.0... should it be 1.0-alpha?
- What else would need to be updated? The site perhaps??? Or is it OK to have a few places showing 1.0?

Vote e-mail coming in a few minutes (hopefully).

Cheers
Bruno




________________________________
From: Gary Gregory <***@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <***@commons.apache.org>; Bruno P. Kinoshita <***@apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, 9 September 2018 1:47 AM
Subject: Re: [imaging] Questions about the 1.0-alpha release



I would call it "alpha1" instead of just "alpha".

Gary

On Sat, Sep 8, 2018, 06:58 Bruno P. Kinoshita <***@apache.org> wrote:

Hi all,

Post by Bruno P. Kinoshita
I am almost done following the docs to prepare a release. Didn't struggle as much as I expected with the release-plugin. Had more trouble getting the MANIFEST.MF entries corrected.
But now, before I create the dist tag, and upload the zip/tar.gz (this was not executed by the release plugin because... it's a project that uses assembly plugin I think), I would like to confirm a few things
- The version release is 1.0-alpha
- The changes.xml is for 1.0. I found that commons-lang appears to have had a 3.0-beta. The changes.xml contains the entries for 3.0, with an HTML comment showing which changes were added post 3.0-beta. So I did the same for imaging
- RELEASE-NOTES.txt is still saying 1.0... should it be 1.0-alpha?
- What else would need to be updated? The site perhaps??? Or is it OK to have a few places showing 1.0?
I have time to work on the RC1 vote until Monday NZ time this week. So if I manage to get these points sorted, we might be able to call the RC1 vote, and leave it running until the next weekend - or cancel it during the week in case of an error, and then I could prepare RC2 next weekend I think.
Thanks!
Bruno
---------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-***@commons.apache.org