I know that some of the items are nits, but if we are to re-cut an RC for Boost reasons -- I'd suggest we may as well take care of them
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Alexander Broekhuis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Roman, > > Thanks for your review. A few questions though > > 2014/1/21 Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> > >> A few problems that I think would be worth fixing for 1.0.0: >> * it would be really nice to replace sha file with a more common format >> > > The checksum has been created with the command mentioned on the Apache > Signing Releases page [1]. I don't see what is wrong with this. There was an old discussion on that some time ago. Basically the problem boils down to a fact that I can't verify it with shasum(1) and thus can't sign off on it. >> * it would be nice to have version embedded into the name of the top >> level dir inside of the tarball >> > > We have decided to leave it out since else there would always be an issue > with the BUILDING instructions and the default directory. This was a remark > by someone on the first (0.0.1) release where we did have the version in > the top-level directory. Hm. I'm just curious -- was there a thread on this one? >> * boost license is missing in NOTICES >> > > Why should the boost license be in the NOTICES file? There have been a lot > of discussions on this file, and my understanding always has been that if a > license is in a header it is not needed to add it to the NOTICES file. I honestly don't recall this. Care to point a thread? Thanks, Roman.
