On 18/12/2007, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leo Simons wrote: > > On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > >> On Dec 18, 2007 10:37 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> ...So it is a new requirement and I don't think we should be making > >>> up policy > >>> during a release vote > > > > +1, that's even part of the policy! It is just *so* annoying that this > > keeps happening. > > > >>> like this as it makes it very frustrating for > >>> poddling. How about letting this UIMA release out as-is for now > >>> while we > >>> work this out?... > > > > Yup. It always gets fuzzy when voting and discussion intermix, but I > > do count 3 +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes. That typically > > means the vote passes, so UIMA can release. > > > Right the vote runs for more than 72 hours and we have 3 +1 votes and > one -1 vote. > > The other open issue was the checksum representation for MD5 and SHA1. > The representation can be improved and we will do this for the next release. > (I already opened a JIRA issue for that). It is just open what we have > to do for the current release.
I've created reformatted versions for the src and bin archives in: http://people.apache.org/~sebb/UIMA/ in case that helps. I've not fixed the Maven hashes. I don't know whether the Maven hash-checking can cope with the format or not - and does it ignore hash files with incorrect format or what? If it does not handle the format properly, this could cause download problems. > -- Michael > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
