On 2 May 2010 01:40, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry, still not correct... Here's my -1.
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/jpa-0.1-incubating/LICENSE
>  only contains the CDDL license. It must contain the dual license. I see a 
> LICENSE and NOTICE file here: 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/jpa-0.1-incubating/jpa/ 
> which look correct. However, those license/notice files aren't really needed 
> (or are in the wrong place). You can keep them, if you want, but the 
> governing license/notice files need to be in the root directory of the 
> release (i.e. 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/jpa-0.1-incubating/).

It looks like something odd happened when I cut this RC. I neglected
to delete the tag for RC2 so maven-release-plugin seems to have tagged
the RC3 and put it as a subdir under jpa-0.1-incubating. This explains
why the LICENSE is right under there, but not at the
jpa-0.1-incubating level.

>
> Also, org.apache.aries.jpa.container-0.1-incubating.jar only contains the 
> CDDL license. It needs to contain the dual license. The NOTICE file looks 
> correct.

I thought I had fixed this as well and checked it! Clearly not. Thanks
for checking.

>
> --kevan
>
> On Apr 30, 2010, at 8:46 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>
>> I've staged the third release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1.
>> The following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision
>> 939636.
>>
>> Modules staged at
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-009/
>>
>> which are unchanged from RC2 are:
>>
>> parent
>> eba-maven-plugin
>> testsupport
>> util
>> blueprint
>> jndi
>> transaction
>> web
>> application
>> jmx
>>
>> Modules staged at
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-036/
>>
>> are
>>
>> jpa
>> samples
>>
>> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed.
>>
>> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1
>> [ ] +0
>> [ ] -1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jeremy
>
>

Reply via email to