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 Commons Net 2.0
Date Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:09:13 GMT
On 03/03/2008, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/03/2008, Rory Winston <rory.winston@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > Hi
>  >
>  >  This is a release vote for Commons Net 2.0. This release is a major new
>  >  release with a huge number of changes and fixes. This release requires
>  >  JDK 1.5+.
>  >
>  >  The changes are here:
>  >  http://people.apache.org/~rwinston/commons-net-2.0/site/changes-report.html#a2.0
>  >
>  >  The RC deployment is here:
>  >  http://people.apache.org/~rwinston/commons-net-2.0/site/
>
>
> Downloads page links refer to jakarta.
>
>  Should not include Nightlies on a user page.
>
>  The RAT report shows lots of files without licenses.
>  These seem to be mainly generated files, so perhaps the RAT options
>  need to be changed?
>
>
>  >  Binaries:
>  >  http://people.apache.org/~rwinston/commons-net-2.0/commons-net-2.0.0-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz
>  >
>  >  Source:
>  >  http://people.apache.org/~rwinston/commons-net-2.0/commons-net-2.0.0-SNAPSHOT-src.tar.gz
>  >
>
>
> There are no digests or sigs.
>
>  The source archives are huge compared with the binary archives.
>  The zip version contains several archives and jars that should not be there.
>  Nor should the source archive contain any class files.
>
>  Is the file jira-results.xml supposed to be there?
>  What about FTPCient.java.orig ? Looks like a temporary file.
>
>  The source archive also contains the entire site.
>
>  The commons-net-ftp jar manifest has a mistake:
>
>  Implmentation-Title: Commons Net
>
>  and should contain the compiler source and target versions, as is done
>  for the other jar.
>
>
>
>  >  Javadocs:
>  >  http://people.apache.org/~rwinston/commons-net-2.0/site/apidocs/index.html
>  >
>  >  SVN tag:
>  >  http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/net/tags/NET_2_0/
>  >
>  >  Here's my +1 in advance.
>
>
> Sorry, but -1 as it stands.
>

Also just noticed that the pom and NOTICE disagree on the inception year.
One or both of them must be wrong.

AFAIK, it's important that the Copyright statement in the NOTICE file
accurately reflects when the code was created/updated.
>
>  >  Cheers
>  >  Rory
>  >
>  >
>  >  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>  >  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>  >
>  >
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message