celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pepijn Noltes <pepijnnol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Celix version 1.0.0.incubating
Date Fri, 07 Feb 2014 08:52:43 GMT
Hi All,

I would like to propose to forward the release vote to the incubator
mailing list We got two +1 binding vote and -1 vote, so we are one binding
+1 short.
There is still some comments from Roman, but I think there is always some
room for improvement and again there is no  -1 vote.

I would like to known if any mentors see a problem with this approach. I
don't want to step on anybody's toes, but would like to push the release
forward.

Greetings,
Pepijn




On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Pepijn Noltes <pepijnnoltes@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Roman,
>
> Could you have a look at the comments of Alexander? I known I'm pushing a
> bit, but we are hoping to get the release ready :).
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Alexander Broekhuis <
> a.broekhuis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Roman,
>>
>> See my remarks inline below. I hope this gives you enough confidence to
>> sign this release off.
>>
>> 2014/1/24 Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@apache.org>
>>
>> > I know that some of the items are nits, but if we are to
>> > re-cut an RC for Boost reasons -- I'd suggest we may
>> > as well take care of them
>> >
>>
>> The way I read [2], there is no need to add anything to the notice file at
>> all. All third party sources we use have a header with the respective
>> license information. At [2] it is even explicitly mentioned not to add
>> anything unless legally required.
>>
>> "Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally required."
>>
>> So I don't see a reason why a new release is needed for Boost.
>>
>>  >
>> > > The checksum has been created with the command mentioned on the Apache
>> > > Signing Releases page [1]. I don't see what is wrong with this.
>> >
>> > There was an old discussion on that some time ago. Basically
>> > the problem boils down to a fact that I can't verify it with shasum(1)
>> > and thus can't sign off on it.
>> >
>>
>> This was indeed an old discussion, but there has never been reached a
>> consensus, and as stated before, I've explicitly used the method described
>> on the Apache pages, which uses the gpg tooling to verify a checksum.
>> Instead of using shasum, you can simply use gpg --print-md "filename".
>>
>> If all I do is follow the official Apache document then what am I doing
>> wrong?
>>
>> I've had some discussion with Marcel on this topic as well, and in some
>> other project where Marcel is involved, they use a script to compare the
>> checksums. A similar solution might be implemented for Celix as well, I
>> don't mind adding this to the backlog.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >>    * it would be nice to have version embedded into the name of the
>> top
>> > >>      level dir inside of the tarball
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > We have decided to leave it out since else there would always be an
>> issue
>> > > with the BUILDING instructions and the default directory. This was a
>> > remark
>> > > by someone on the first (0.0.1) release where we did have the version
>> in
>> > > the top-level directory.
>> >
>> > Hm. I'm just curious -- was there a thread on this one?
>> >
>>
>> This was a remark made by Marcel on our first release. See [3] for his
>> message/the release thread.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >>    * boost license is missing in NOTICES
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Why should the boost license be in the NOTICES file? There have been a
>> > lot
>> > > of discussions on this file, and my understanding always has been that
>> > if a
>> > > license is in a header it is not needed to add it to the NOTICES file.
>> >
>> > I honestly don't recall this. Care to point a thread?
>> >
>>
>> I can't find the thread, but [2] gives a good explanation.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Roman.
>> >
>>
>>
>> [1]: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing#sha-checksum
>> [2]: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
>> [3]: http://incubator.markmail.org/thread/ot7cwepmcusdblqs
>>
>> --
>> Met vriendelijke groet,
>>
>> Alexander Broekhuis
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message