Unless someone from legal-discuss responds to my last query saying we
"must" change the README, I'll vote +1 when I start my day tomorrow (in
the other thread).
-Alex
On 9/2/14 9:25 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>+1 Binding
>
>MD5 looks fine
>Valid signature found
>README looks good
>RELEASE
+1 Binding
MD5 looks fine
Valid signature found
README looks good
RELEASE_NOTES look good
LICENSE looks good
Source kit compiles fine
Thanks,
Om
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 binding
>
> - artefact names good
> - signatures and hash good
> - NOTICE and LI
Sorry, I did not notice this new vote thread. Gmail merged it with the
DISCUSS thread. I will take it for a spin.
It will be good if you changed the subject just a little bit to avoid this
in future.
Thanks,
Om
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some time has pas
Hi,
Some time has passed and we only have one vote to release this.
Can a couple of PMC members please take a look and see if we can move towards
releasing this or if that there are any further issues and another RC is
required?
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
+1 binding
- artefact names good
- signatures and hash good
- NOTICE and LICENCE good
- README and RELEASE_NOTES fine
- all source files have correct header
- no binary files in source release
- can compile from source package
- can create example that works
Possible minor issues:
Generated
Hi,
This is a Squiggly Release Candidate 1. Please see the RELEASE_NOTES and the
README.
Changes from the last version:
- Added asdocs
- Merged READMEs / added instructions on how to use Squiggly
- Removed demo and scripts as they are missing needed dictionaries
- Fixed LICENSE
- Change default
