On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 06:18:19PM +1100, Justin Mclean wrote:
> HI,
>
> > Since we won't be releasing binaries this time around, the only
> > artifacts are: 1) the source tgz files
>
> Perhaps a silly question. But how are those tgz files generated?
Oh, I see. No, not silly at all. I used
HI,
> Since we won't be releasing binaries this time around, the only
> artifacts are: 1) the source tgz files
Perhaps a silly question. But how are those tgz files generated?
Thanks,
Justin
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 06:05:20PM +1100, Justin Mclean wrote:
> What the process for generating the release artefacts?
Since we won't be releasing binaries this time around, the only
artifacts are: 1) the source tgz files, 2) the ascii signature files,
and 3) the SHA checksums.
Or maybe you are
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:54:11PM +1100, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> Would you like me to give the various LICENSE and NOTICE files a once
> >> over before you make an official RC?
> >
> > Oops, I am not sure how I missed this. Yes, that would be extremely
> > helpful.
>
> I assume they
Hi,
>> Would you like me to give the various LICENSE and NOTICE files a once
>> over before you make an official RC?
>
> Oops, I am not sure how I missed this. Yes, that would be extremely
> helpful.
I assume they are in the top of each repo? I can’t get to this right now (just
about to go
Hi,
Another thought - releasing all 3 products make sense for the first release.
After that you may want to consider releasing and voting on each one separately
- less to review / less moving pieces to foul up :-)
Thanks,
Justin
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 04:19:57PM +1100, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Would you like me to give the various LICENSE and NOTICE files a once
> over before you make an official RC?
Oops, I am not sure how I missed this. Yes, that would be extremely
helpful.
Thanks,
Chris
Hi,
> No - the binaries certainly *do* contain LGPL code. I take it that is a
> problem :). I think we can refrain from releasing the binaries until we
> get the LGPL issue sorted out. If others disagree with this, please
> chime in.
Having a source only release would make it easier. Just be
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 04:19:57PM +1100, Justin Mclean wrote:
[convenience binaries]
> And are we 100% sure that they don’t contain the LGPL code (source or
> compiled) ?
No - the binaries certainly *do* contain LGPL code. I take it that is a
problem :). I think we can refrain from releasing
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 01:43:59PM +1100, Justin Mclean wrote:
> If you’re going to be RM, you should sign up to that list and/or take
> a look previous incubating release votes so you know what to expect.
Good idea. I have subscribed to that list.
Now... :) I am afraid I'm going to have to nag
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 01:18:19PM +1100, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Thanks, Justin. If we remove this from the distribution (i.e., don't
> > bundle it), do we still need to mention it in LICENSE or NOTICE?
>
> No only things that are bundled need to be mentioned in LICENSE and
> NOTICE,
11 matches
Mail list logo
