Hi All, I would like to propose to forward the release vote to the incubator mailing list We got two +1 binding vote and -1 vote, so we are one binding +1 short. There is still some comments from Roman, but I think there is always some room for improvement and again there is no -1 vote.
I would like to known if any mentors see a problem with this approach. I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but would like to push the release forward. Greetings, Pepijn On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Pepijn Noltes <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Roman, > > Could you have a look at the comments of Alexander? I known I'm pushing a > bit, but we are hoping to get the release ready :). > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Alexander Broekhuis < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Roman, >> >> See my remarks inline below. I hope this gives you enough confidence to >> sign this release off. >> >> 2014/1/24 Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> >> >> > 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 >> > >> >> The way I read [2], there is no need to add anything to the notice file at >> all. All third party sources we use have a header with the respective >> license information. At [2] it is even explicitly mentioned not to add >> anything unless legally required. >> >> "Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally required." >> >> So I don't see a reason why a new release is needed for Boost. >> >> > >> > > 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. >> > >> >> This was indeed an old discussion, but there has never been reached a >> consensus, and as stated before, I've explicitly used the method described >> on the Apache pages, which uses the gpg tooling to verify a checksum. >> Instead of using shasum, you can simply use gpg --print-md "filename". >> >> If all I do is follow the official Apache document then what am I doing >> wrong? >> >> I've had some discussion with Marcel on this topic as well, and in some >> other project where Marcel is involved, they use a script to compare the >> checksums. A similar solution might be implemented for Celix as well, I >> don't mind adding this to the backlog. >> >> >> > >> > >> * 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? >> > >> >> This was a remark made by Marcel on our first release. See [3] for his >> message/the release thread. >> >> >> >> > >> > >> * 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? >> > >> >> I can't find the thread, but [2] gives a good explanation. >> >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Roman. >> > >> >> >> [1]: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing#sha-checksum >> [2]: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice >> [3]: http://incubator.markmail.org/thread/ot7cwepmcusdblqs >> >> -- >> Met vriendelijke groet, >> >> Alexander Broekhuis >> > >
