tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Boynes <>
Subject Issues in Apache Taglibs 1.2.0-RC1
Date Sat, 14 Sep 2013 16:09:05 GMT
On Aug 7, 2013, at 4:41 AM, sebb <> wrote:

> On 2 August 2013 20:32, Jeremy Boynes <> wrote:
>> A proposed release candidate Apache Taglibs 1.2.0-RC1 is now available for voting.
>> This is release candidate for an implementation of JSTL 1.2 and can be obtained from
the staging repo at:
>> The source distribution can be obtained from:
>> The proposed 1.2.0-RC1 candidate is:
>> [X] Broken - do not release
>> [ ] Alpha - can be released as 1.2.0-RC1 alpha
>> This is the first release in a long time, and the first since switching to Maven.
If there are issues, please list all concerns so they can be addressed.
> Please include the SVN tag and revision number in all vote e-mails.
> Otherwise it's not possible to check provenance of the the source files.
> Nor can one check if there are files missing from the source archive
> (or accidentally added).
> A link to the KEYS file should also be included so the sigs can be checked.
> ==
> The NOTICE file says:
> Apache Tomcat Standard Taglib
> Copyright 2001-2012 The Apache Software Foundation
> This product includes software developed by
> The Apache Software Foundation (
> <<<
> The year should possibly be updated to 2013.
> "developed by" MUST be changed to "developed at"
> The NOTICE files in the META-INF jar directories don't have the full
> name of the component. The name must include the "Apache Tomcat
> Standard Taglib" prefix. However, the NOTICE files do say "developed
> at".
> There are several files without AL headers.
> Several source files contain the SVN tag $Date$.
> This is generated using the local timezone, so the source archive will
> be different depending where it is generated. Best to avoid $Date$; if
> you want a date, use $Id$ instead, though $Revision$ should be
> sufficient.
> The source archive top-level directory includes the suffix RC1; that is unusual.
> The file does not have svn:eolstyle native set.
> The file is marked as executable in SVN props.

I think addressed those issues in the following changes:

except for the "several files without AL headers." I'll look to see which those are but pointers
would help.
After those changes do you see any additional problems?


View raw message