geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] jaxb 2.1 spec jar 1.0
Date Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:01:37 GMT

On Jul 27, 2009, at 1:13 PM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> 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 people.apache.org: when I figure out how  
>>> to promote them I'll post an updated location.
>>>
>>> Staging site for artifacts:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging/
>>>
>>> Staging site for stie:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-site/maven/specs/geronimo-jaxb_2.1_spec/1.0/
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.

Thanks a bunch for digging through svn history. That makes sense. I'd  
prefer to see updated license/notice files. If only license/notice are  
being updated, I'm not sure a new, full 72-hour vote would be required.

--kevan 

Mime
View raw message