On 11/28/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/28/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/28/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/28/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ------------
> > > [X] +1 I support this release
> > > [ ] +0
> > > [ ] -0
> > > [ ] -1 I do not support this release because...
> > > ------------
> >
> > Inspected the artifacts, they all look good. Also passes the Shale
> > Validator unit tests with 1.3.1-RC1, once I added oro as a test-time
> > dependency (due to its use in several of the validators that were tested),
> > which was not necessary with 1.3.0. Nitpick -- maybe highlight this in
> > the release notes (instead of just in the Maven1 project.xml file)?
I will add a note to release notes for this.
> Follow up comment on something I missed (and will apply to Rahul's digester
> release candidate as well). Are you planning on respinning the bits with
> the correct version number (1.3.1 instead of 1.3.1-RC1) before the actual
> vote? I prefer to vote on the real bits for an actual release.
I wasn't planning to as its not the procedure[1] Commons is currently
using. I agree that this is a weakness, since theres potential for
mistakes when the final release is cut. This needs commons to agree a
policy change though.
Actually I changed my mind - its only a subversion tag which can be
deleted and re-tagged. I'll do this and upload the proposed final
artifacts to ~niallp @ apache.
Niall
Thanks for your feedback - much appreciated.
Niall
[1] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases/prepare.html
> Niall
> >
> >
> Craig
>
>
> Craig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
