sebb wrote: > 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.
Thanks! > > 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. The hashes for the maven artifacts are generated by maven, in the format that maven wants them. There should be no problem, there hasn't been in the past. --Thilo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
