On Sep 10, 2009, at 4:29 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

I've uploaded a new 1.0.0 release of the blueprint project.
I think I've addressed all the issues raised in the discussion thread.

The staging repository is available at:
 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/geronimo-staging-054/

The corresponding tag is available at
  
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/blueprint/tags/blueprint-1.0.0/

Please review and vote:
[  ] +1 Release
[  ] -1 Do not release

The vote will remain open for 72 hours.

The following files do not contain apache source license headers.

./blueprint-api/src/main/java/org/osgi/service/blueprint/container/ package.html ./blueprint-api/src/main/java/org/osgi/service/blueprint/container/ packageinfo ./blueprint-api/src/main/java/org/osgi/service/blueprint/reflect/ package.html ./blueprint-api/src/main/java/org/osgi/service/blueprint/reflect/ packageinfo
 ./blueprint-core/src/main/resources/OSGI-INF/permissions.perm
 ./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/cache.xsd
 ./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test-bad-id-ref.xml
 ./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test-constructor.xml
 ./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test-depends-on.xml
 ./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test-generics.xml
 ./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test-simple-component.xml
 ./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test-wiring.xml
 ./blueprint-core/src/test/resources/test.xml
 ./blueprint-sample/src/main/resources/OSGI-INF/blueprint/config.xml

Unless convinced otherwise, I think those must be fixed.

The README should be updated to not reference 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT. Also, the README instructions do not reference the correct maven groupid/ artifactid for blueprint bundles:

Current: file:///<m2_repo>/org/apache/geronimo/blueprint-bundle/1.0.0- SNAPSHOT/blueprint-bundle-1.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar Should be: file:///<m2_repo/org/apache/geronimo/blueprint/ org.apache.geronimo.blueprint.bundle/1.0.0/ org.apache.geronimo.blueprint.bundle-1.0.0.jar

Was there any NOTICE information associated with the original OSGi Alliance source? If so, it might need to be moved over...

Everything else looked good to me.

--kevan

Reply via email to