geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] jaxb 2.1 spec jar 1.0
Date Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:13:58 GMT

On Jul 27, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

> On Jul 25, 2009, at 12:49 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Scout is upgrading their maven build and wants to use our spec  
>> jars, and we need to get several released for 2.2.  The one scout  
>> needs now is jaxb 2.1.
>> We've run the jaxb 2.1 tck on it and it works.
>> This is the first release of this spec jar from geronimo.
>> I'm having a bit of trouble promoting the uploads in apache nexus  
>> so for now I put them on when I figure out how  
>> to promote them I'll post an updated location.
>> Staging site for artifacts:
>> Staging site for stie:
>> Voting will remain open for 72 hours.
> Source and signatures look good.
> The LICENSE and NOTICE file in the source and binary are different.  
> The source versions contains license and notice information that is  
> not contained in the binary version. I don't see how that can be  
> correct. One of the pairs must be wrong. Until this is resolved, I'm  
> -1.

I looked at svn history.  This spec came from servicemix where it was  
written entirely by gnodet.  The servicemix svn contains the smaller  
generic LICENSE and NOTICE files.  Someone added the expanded ones to  
all our spec projects at some point.

So my conclusion is that the plain vanilla LICENSE and NOTICE files  
are more correct for this spec project.  I'll update them in trunk.

Now, Apache has a long and unfortunate tradition of including extra  
crud in LICENSE and NOTICE files.  Much as I don't like participating  
in this tradition I'm not sure I think this one is worth rerolling the  
release for.

I'll ask the scout folks if they can run their release vote  
concurrently with this vote -- if they can I'll re-roll this one.

david jencks

> --kevan

View raw message