geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject CANCELLED [VOTE] jaxb 2.1 spec jar 1.0
Date Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:54:21 GMT
The scout folks are OK with concurrent votes.  I've fixed the legal  
files, re-staged the artifacts and will call a new vote.

thanks
david jencks

On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> 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