-1 for the reasons already given Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 19 May 2011, at 16:31, Richard Frovarp <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/19/2011 04:28 AM, Thorsten Scherler wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 18:03 -0500, Richard Frovarp wrote: >>> On 05/12/2011 03:30 PM, Richard Frovarp wrote: >>>> A 0.1-incubating release candidate has been created, with the following >>>> artifacts up for a vote: >>>> >>>> SVN source tag (r1100814): >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/droids/tags/0.1-incubating/ >>>> >>>> Maven staging repo: >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedroids-031/ >>>> >>>> Source release: >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedroids-031/org/apache/droids/droids/0.1-incubating/droids-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> PGP release keys (signed using D1323BDA): >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/droids/KEYS >>>> >>>> >>>> Vote will be open for 7 days. >>>> >>>> [ ] +1 approve >>>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >>> >>> -1 >>> >>> Looking through this, I'm starting to see problems with the release. >>> >>> 1) My svn threw extra crap into the source release that shouldn't be there. >>> 2) A couple of files are missing headers >>> 3) Not all of the NOTICE files are complete >>> 4) We really should pull everything that isn't referenced in our top >>> pom.xml out of that spot in SVN to create a clean source release. That >>> might help with problems #2& #3. >>> >>> What do others think? I'm going to work on these issues tonight. It >>> won't change the code, but would change the release artifacts for the >>> next release / release attempt. >> >> I tried the code and it works fine for me. Regarding the points you >> mentioned if they do not change the functional integrity then I say we >> fix them and do another release. However here my +1 for the functional >> part. >> >> salu2 > > Yes, they don't change the functional part at all. However, this has to be > sent to the IPMC for approval, and they'll probably send the release back > down to us due to these issues. I can prepare a cleaned up release this > weekend. How long of a vote do we want for that one?
