Agreed we'll need to cancel the vote, but would really appreciate if folk can take a look at what else will need fixed, rather than us fixing just one thing at a time per RC.
Any more feedback greatly appreciated. Aled Sent from my iPhone > On 12 Nov 2014, at 22:45, Alex Heneveld <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Aled- > > > I've just spotted, should our LICENSE file contain a copy of each of the > > licenses mentioned in the NOTICE file? > > (it doesn't include all of them). > > It should include all, and it did include all when I went through it. Let's > either add the new licenses or remove > where they only apply to config files where the license terms are weaker. > > I think this means cancelling the VOTE again. :) > > Best > Alex > > > >> On 12/11/2014 16:45, Aled Sage wrote: >> (Is this right to have a separate [DISCUSS] thread (I'm copying what was >> done in jclouds). >> >> The differences from rc0 are: >> >> * GPL and LGPL references removed from NOTICE, having confirmed with >> reviewed the relevant config files and discussed with JBoss. >> * General tidy of NOTICE file. >> * General tidy of comments in pom.xml about RAT exclusions. >> >> --- >> I've just spotted, should our LICENSE file contain a copy of each of the >> licenses mentioned in the NOTICE file? >> (it doesn't include all of them). >> It does say: >> >> OTHER LICENSES >> >> This software incorporates minor components developed elsewhere, as >> described in >> the accompanying NOTICE file. In addition to the Apache License 2.0 >> (above), >> the other licenses referenced there under which those components are >> used are: >> >> and then gives the MIT and New BSD licenses. >> >> --- >> >> Feedback much appreciated! >> >> ==== >> >> ** >> >> *Checklist (all items optional, mark only those personally verified):* >> >> * >> >> [*Y*] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. >> >> [*Y*] Expanded source archive matches contents of RC tag. >> >> [*Y*] Expanded source archive builds and passes tests. >> >> [**] LICENSE is present and correct. >> >> [ ] NOTICE is present and correct, including copyright date. >> >> [ ] All files have license headers where appropriate. >> >> [ ] All dependencies have compatible licenses. >> >> [ ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive. >> >> [*Y*] I follow this project's commits list. >> >> * >> >> >>> On 12/11/2014 16:20, Aled Sage wrote: >>> This is to call for a vote for the source release of Apache Brooklyn >>> 0.7.0-M2-incubating (RC1). >>> >>> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/brooklyn/apache-brooklyn-0.7.0-M2-incubating-rc1 >>> >>> >>> The Git commit ID is edcf928ee65cc29a84376c822759e468a9f016fe >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-brooklyn.git;a=commit;h=edcf928ee65cc29a84376c822759e468a9f016fe >>> >>> >>> Release artifacts are signed with the following key: >>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/aledsage.asc >>> >>> Checksums of apache-brooklyn-0.7.0-M2-incubating-rc0.tar.gz: >>> MD5: 9859ca752042e84c3381cc977623197a >>> SHA1: 449d2f375f2b61aa8430d56687b9817019bdf18f >>> SHA256: 5b4874527c32ef61b18d7d4bed4663a777dcd18bae3ed20662d022d92cfc1f76 >>> >>> KEYS file available here: >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/brooklyn/KEYS >>> >>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Brooklyn >>> 0.7.0-M2-incubating. >>> >>> The vote will be open for 72 hours. >>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Brooklyn 0.7.0-M2-incubating >>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ... >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Aled Sage >
