commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Email 1.1 (RC2)
Date Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:34:17 GMT
Some of the MD5s don't work for me:

BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2.jar
Expect: fb02f6aff49332705084b662a5d8d945
Found:  a2d70201e44041f9d9b3d865c615e35f

BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.tar.gz
Expect: f7d933426b68e184047405b52e9bfa0c
Found:  770a8da798eb94137e24e03da2904a66

BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.zip
Expect: 21fd56446a77476370d2b0c1bc87b241
Found:  1a1b4e432d1ec67af99a66576f53db7e

S///
On 24/09/2007, Ben Speakmon <bspeakmon@apache.org> wrote:
>
> New source and javadoc jars have been uploaded, tag has been reapplied,
> and
> signatures rechecked. Votes again welcome :)
>
> On 9/24/07, Ben Speakmon <bspeakmon@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Just wanted to make sure.
> >
> > I will update the RC sources.jar and javadoc.jar with versions that put
> > the LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF. I'll check in the POM and retag as RC2,
> > leaving the current RC2 artifacts on people.a.o in place as there are no
> > code changes. Is everybody okay with that plan?
> >
> > On 9/24/07, Ben Speakmon <bspeakmon@apache.org > wrote:
> > >
> > > That settles it for me. Do we need to put LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF
> in
> > > source and javadoc or is the root directory acceptable?
> > >
> > > On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ben Speakmon wrote:
> > > > > I wasn't sure what to make of it either; the release docs don't
> > > > mention it
> > > > > specifically. The source and javadoc jars, BTW, are intended to be
> > > > deployed
> > > > > next to the final build in the maven repo. It won't be hard to
> make
> > > > sure
> > > > > they get in there. Is there a consensus that it's required for
> this
> > > > release?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't have an official reference either, but I remember votes that
> > > > were canceled because of this. Here is an example for that I found
> in
> > > > the archives [1].
> > > >
> > > > Oliver
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--3rd-attempt:-Release-commons-io-1.3.2-t3880798.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
> > > > >> Everything looks good, except for one thing, which I think needs
> to
> > > > be
> > > > >> fixed: the jar with the javadocs does not contain NOTICE.txt
and
> > > > >> LICENSE.txt. (The jar with the sources contains these files,
but
> > > > they
> > > > >> are stored in the top level rather than in META-INF; don't know
> > > > whether
> > > > >> this is problematic.)
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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