Cos, Thanks for the vote! I think the whole PPMC voted as well.
Brane, would love to get your vote too. As far as the error you got, I cannot reproduce it. Is there anyone else in the community who tried this? D. On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > Checksums are ok > Signature is ok > Release tree produces binaries without optional LGPL libs > > Have filed for the following bug (doesn't appear to be a blocker?) > IGNITE-650. ignitevisorcmd fails with NoClassDefFoundError > > Cos > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 06:40PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > (restarting a new vote for 1.0.0 after fixing the default build not to > > include LGPL libs) > > > > I have uploaded the new 1.0.0 release candidate to: > > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/ > > > > The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got for RC3: > > > > 1. Added the ability to build a binary ZIP file without LGPL dependencies > > by default. > > 2. Fixed jdk8.backport wrong license issue. > > 3. Fixed NOTICE.txt according to comments from IPMC. > > 4. Fixed LICENSE.txt according to comments from IPMC. > > > > To build a binary release from source run: > > > > # Without LGPL dependencies > > mvn clean package -DskipTests > > > > # With LGPL dependencies > > mvn clean package -DskipTests -Prelease,lgpl > > > > > > Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are available > > in DEVNOTES.txt file. > > > > Please start voting. > > > > +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.0 > > 0 - don't care either way > > -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.0 (explain why) >
