I think we all agree that "ESTEAM Software" has to go from everywhere in the release. This has clearly been a simple mistake. We didn't know about the RAT report (Jörg did you?) but we have acknoleged this and we will consider this in the future. However Henning I was surprised by your comment that it is "pretty common to release Apache projects as a source archive only without binaries" In fact, as a long time Apache user I have never seen a release distribution without binaries. Take Tomcat, Xalan, Struts or Wicket for example, they all contain the binaries. Or did I misunderstand you on this one? If no one disagrees I would defer the maven repository for the next release. But surely we should include the ant build files that we already have with this release. (We use ant-scripts to build the binaries not the IDE) Jörg can you find the time to perform all these changes and make a new release candiate? Regeards, Rainer
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > I strongly urge you to keep the 72 hour period even if you have three or > four votes already. This is a worldwide community and it is midnight > somewhere on that planet all the time. If you call for a vote on a > Thursday, you will want to let it run till Monday. Shortcutting votes is > a sure way to get questions or concern about the community state. > > > On the subject: I pretty much concur with what Martijn wrote. I also > like to add: > > - MANIFEST.MF still shows "ESTEAM Software", that should be Apache > - Most java files show "ESTEAM Software" in the author tags. I'd > encourage you to replace these with "Apache Empire-db Authors" or > something like this over the course of incubation. > > Getting a RAT report before a release is IMHO necessary. We can let this > slip for the first release, but in the future, I will simply vote a > release down unless it has a RAT report. > > It is pretty common to release Apache projects as a source archive only > without binaries, with all the files needed to rebuild and it is > preferred to be able to rebuild the binary with ant/maven or another > command line tool instead of an IDE. > > A binary release is fine and also encouraged, but the primary > distribution that Apache does is source code and a way for users to > rebuild it on their system. > > You probably also want to release to the incubator Maven repository, too > (easy if you build with maven, a bit more difficult but not much if you > use ant) to get a wider audience for the release. > > So my vote is -0; I'd let this one pass but I am pretty sure that the > IPMC will have issues with it. It is probably easier to fix these first. > > > > Best regards > Henning >
