incubator-vcl-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] release VCL 2.1
Date Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:45:26 GMT

On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Josh Thompson wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I created a release artifact based off of trunk.  I copied trunk to  
> a tag
> under the tags area of the repo that is named release-2.1-RC1:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/vcl/tags/release-2.1-RC1/
>
> The artifact is an export from that tag.  The artifact, MD5 and SHA1  
> sums, and
> my GPG signature of it are available from my space on people.a.o:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jfthomps/apache-VCL-2.1-RC1-incubating/
>
> The list of resolved JIRA issues associated with this release can be  
> found on
> the VCL 2.1 release page:
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/VCL/vcl-21-unreleased.html#VCL2.1%2528unreleased%2529-ChangeLog
>
> Installation instructions are on the Confluence site and in the  
> INSTALLATION
> file included in the artifact.
>
> Aaron, Andy, and I have completed a test install of all parts and  
> were able to
> successfully create and capture a base image.
>
> Please vote to publish this release.
>
> (Question to mentors: Do I need to vote in a successive email in  
> this thread,
> or is this post an implicit vote?)

You should either include an explicit +1 in the initial vote email, or  
"reply" in another email. Either is acceptable. I kind of prefer a  
separate email, but that's just me...

Most votes will include a formal statement on what the vote is about.  
E.g.:

[ ] +1 yes, release VCL 2.1
[ ] 0 dunno
[ ] -1 no, don't release VCL 2.1 (provide reasons).

This is the strangest Apache "release" that I've ever seen... Taking  
some getting used to... I have some questions/comments. Haven't  
decided on my vote, yet.

* web/.ht-inc/conf.php contains references to Shibboleth and UNC. I  
assume that's holdover from VCL's origins.

* Instructions on installation, prereqs, etc should be clear that a  
user must determine the licensing of the technologies that you are  
requiring/referring to/downloading. It's not clear to me if that  
information is being conveyed. Clearly, you require GPL, LGPL, and  
microsoft proprietary artifacts. Wondering how much of this needs to  
flow through legal-discuss... Prolly Alan and Matt have thought about  
this already.

* managementnode/bin/install_perl_libs.pl will download install  
libraries, IIUC. What are the licenses of these artifacts? Users need  
to be made aware of what you are doing for them...

--kevan








Mime
View raw message