Unless someone from legal-discuss responds to my last query saying we "must" change the README, I'll vote +1 when I start my day tomorrow (in the other thread).
-Alex On 9/2/14 9:25 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >+1 Binding > >MD5 looks fine >Valid signature found >README looks good >RELEASE_NOTES look good >LICENSE looks good >Source kit compiles fine > >Thanks, >Om > > > >On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> >wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> +1 binding >> >> - artefact names good >> - signatures and hash good >> - NOTICE and LICENCE good >> - README and RELEASE_NOTES fine >> - all source files have correct header >> - no binary files in source release >> - can compile from source package >> - can create example that works >> >> Possible minor issues: >> Generated asdoc files don't have apache headers but we can add them in a >> future release if we think they are a nice to have. As per rat "JavaDocs >> are generated and so license header is optional Generated files do not >> required license headers" >> >> Thanks, >> Justin >>
