Forwarding to Geronimo thread....

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-PFD2 and geronimo-validation_1.0_spec-1.0-CR5 for OpenJPA (2nd try)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:30:51 -0700
From: David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: d...@openjpa.apache.org
To: d...@openjpa.apache.org
References: <4ac4cb8f.9040...@apache.org>

+1

source archives build OK for me, legal stuff looks ok.  I wish the
LICENSE files were more correct but it's not enough to redo the vote.

I'm curious how you generated this if it doesn't already have an svn
tag.... IMO all releases should be done with the release plugin which
I would expect would generate the tags directly.

thanks
david jencks

On Oct 1, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Donald Woods wrote:

OpenJPA would like to release a 2.0.0 Milestone 3 release next week based on the JPA 2.0 PFD2 spec level. To do this, they need released versions of the Geronimo JPA2 and Bean Validation spec APIs.

This is the second vote for the geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-PFD2 and geronimo-validation_1.0_spec-1.0-CR5 spec apis, which required NOTICE updates to conform to the new ASF/Sun agreement for releasing early access specs. A new geronimo-staging-017 has been created with the updated artifacts.

geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-PFD2
source:https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/geronimo-jpa_2.0_spec-1.0-PFD2
svn revision:820677
artifacts:https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/geronimo-staging-017/

geronimo-validation_1.0_spec-1.0-CR5
source:https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/geronimo-validation_1.0_spec-1.0-CR5
svn revision:820678
artifacts:https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/geronimo-staging-017/

Both of the above passed rat:check and the ianal plugin. The jar and source artifacts include the License and Notice files.

The branches will be moved to tags and the staging artifacts promoted to the release repo if the vote passes.


Vote open for 72 hours.

[ ] +1
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 (and reason why)


Thanks,
Donald


Reply via email to