Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
Message-ID: <52440699.6060602@douma.nu>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:04:09 +0200
From: Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit FileVault 3.0.0
References: 
 <CAB+dfi=Sm3NWXhOuhS6KnGsExoeczGzWRBUz5zs-TYLOZ3xdSg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAB+dfi=Sm3NWXhOuhS6KnGsExoeczGzWRBUz5zs-TYLOZ3xdSg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm +1 (not-binding) on this release.

There are a few comments I'd like to give however:

- The RELEASE_NOTES.txt indicates JCR-3670 has already been resolved, but this 
is not the case.

- There are two files for LICENSE and LICENSE.txt and for NOTICE and NOTICE.txt.
These files do not contain the same content!

The NOTICE.txt adds a notice that FileVault source code originates from 
Day/Adobe, which is fine, but this file is *not* also distributed with the 
binary artifacts (e.g. under META-INF/ in the jars), which I assume would be the 
intention...

The LICENSE.txt has an extra (leftover?) section under the standard ASL2.0 
header concerning an included Xpath grammer within Jackrabbit subcomponents. 
However AFAIK this is not applicable to (current) FileVault.
This LICENSE.txt is (also) *not* distributed with the binary artifacts, which in 
this case probably is correct :)

- the 'main' artifact is call vault-reactor (as derived from the root pom.xml), 
and therefore likewise the source distribution zip. Might it not be better to 
rename the root pom.xml its name to "vault" or else at least the name of the 
source distribution zip?

Maybe that the NOTICE attribution for Day/Adobe not being distributed is 
problematic for Adobe, but other than that I think these are minor issues which 
can be fixed (if needed) later.

Thanks, Ate


On 09/25/2013 09:07 PM, Tobias Bocanegra wrote:
> A candidate for the Jackrabbit FileVault 3.0.0 release is available at:
>
>      https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/jackrabbit/filevault/3.0.0/
>
> The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in:
>
>      https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/commons/filevault/tags/vault-reactor-3.0.0/
>
> The SHA1 checksum of the archive is 2ef6494e23676cf7cf081721a713e381c7be9a58.
>
> A staged Maven repository is available for review at:
>
>      https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejackrabbit-100/
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit FileVault 3.0.0
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
>      [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit FileVault 3.0.0
>      [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
>
> My vote is +1.
>
> Regards, Toby
>