On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Anthony Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewing the feedback received so far on RC1 we have the following > issues to consider: > > > > 1) The binary NOTICE files needs additions for Spring and Netty [1]. > > 2) The source distributions instructions specify use of gradlew which is > not included and also specify use of jdk 1.7 instead of jdk1.8. > > > > I think the above items require spinning a new release candidate, RC2. > > Are there other issues that would be considered release blockers that > > should be fixed prior to creating RC2? > > Agreed. Before we do that, it would be really great if Niall can chime > in directly and tell us whether the strategy for RC2 outlined above > makes sense from his perspective. IOW, whether taking care of > his feedback that way would make him more of a +1 for this release. > > Niall? > Can the year on the copyright in both the source & binary NOTICE file also be updated for RC2? Theres no issue with distributing jopt-simple & JSON from a license PoV, but policy on this is unclear to me. As a principle the ASF doesn't release other people/project's code when they haven't donated it to the ASF, but at the same time alot of releases contain files that were not donated. As a good open source citizen, we should work with the jopt-simple project rather than forking releasing their code. However, it seems fine to me that its dealt with during incubation rather than specifically for this release. So yes, the strategy outlined for RC2 makes sense to me. Niall > Thanks, > Roman. >
