incubator-empire-db-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rainer Döbele <>
Subject AW: [VOTE] apache-empire-db-2.0.3-incubating and apache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.3-incubating release
Date Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:02:12 GMT
I think we all agree that "ESTEAM Software" has to go from everywhere in the release. 
This has clearly been a simple mistake.
We didn't know about the RAT report (Jörg did you?) but we have acknoleged this and we will
consider this in the future.
However Henning I was surprised by your comment that it is "pretty common to release Apache
projects as a source archive only without binaries"
In fact, as a long time Apache user I have never seen a release distribution without binaries.
Take Tomcat, Xalan, Struts or Wicket for example, they all contain the binaries.
Or did I misunderstand you on this one?
If no one disagrees I would defer the maven repository for the next release.
But surely we should include the ant build files that we already have with this release.
(We use ant-scripts to build the binaries not the IDE)
Jörg can you find the time to perform all these changes and make a new release candiate?

Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> I strongly urge you to keep the 72 hour period even if you have three or
> four votes already. This is a worldwide community and it is midnight
> somewhere on that planet all the time. If you call for a vote on a
> Thursday, you will want to let it run till Monday. Shortcutting votes is
> a sure way to get questions or concern about the community state.
> On the subject: I pretty much concur with what Martijn wrote. I also
> like to add:
> - MANIFEST.MF still shows "ESTEAM Software", that should be Apache
> - Most java files show "ESTEAM Software" in the author tags. I'd
> encourage you to replace these with "Apache Empire-db Authors" or
> something like this over the course of incubation.
> Getting a RAT report before a release is IMHO necessary. We can let this
> slip for the first release, but in the future, I will simply vote a
> release down unless it has a RAT report.
> It is pretty common to release Apache projects as a source archive only
> without binaries, with all the files needed to rebuild and it is
> preferred to be able to rebuild the binary with ant/maven or another
> command line tool instead of an IDE.
> A binary release is fine and also encouraged, but the primary
> distribution that Apache does is source code and a way for users to
> rebuild it on their system.
> You probably also want to release to the incubator Maven repository, too
> (easy if you build with maven, a bit more difficult but not much if you
> use ant) to get a wider audience for the release.
> So my vote is -0; I'd let this one pass but I am pretty sure that the
> IPMC will have issues with it. It is probably easier to fix these first.
>         Best regards
>                 Henning

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