I think with Openfire 3.10.0 release there is a problem for people using Spark 2.6.3 (current official release, which is more than 3 years old) and i think it is related to bundled Java update in Openfire. SSL not working properly. Though i was thinking about the idea of releasing Spark 2.7.0 before, but maybe its time. I can prepare a blog post for it explaining new features, fixes and caveats (especially one that there are no maintainer or developers for Spark). There are some major unfinished tasks like update to current Smack or voice chat overhaul, but this can drag for years. I’ve been using 2.7.0 recent builds in production for a few years and i think it is more stable than 2.6.3.
So, is it possible for someone to tag it for release and then Daryl will build and put it on the Downloads page? Of course, if something major pops up, there would be no maintainer to fix it. But 2.6.3 would still be available for download (will provide a link in the blog post).
Great! Do you want me to prepare a blog post? I can probably do this in a few hours. Also maybe it would be helpful to mention current problem on the 3.10.0 blog post and give a link to the current Spark build?
Mac OS version is still broken, so no reason to build it. Can we still have a 2.6.3 installer for Mac along with 2.7.0 on the Downloads? Or maybe we should just remove Mac OS links. I will explain it in the blog post (along with the problem with our building environment).
I see that you provide md5 sums usually. Can you do it for me and post them here? I may try doing it myself, but it will take more time.
I don’t remember, it was 3 years ago Never mind. Thanks for the hashes, i have just posted on the blog. My first blog post
I see that changelog contains some open issues. Probably because some tickets has 2.7.0 as a fix version. Will go through them and bump. Will it regenrate the changelog?
Huh, forgot to refresh the page with Ctrl-R, was showing me a cached version
So, how about removing that zero bytes Mac installer? Though this probably won’t help that much, but would be more correct. People will still go to forums complaining about the missing installer… I suppose adding something like “no installers planned” in place of the installer is not possible at all?