On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > +1 ! > > Yay mentor vote! Thanks Jim! > > Are any of our other mentors members able to spend some time and cast > a vote? Doing the functional testing to the best of my ability right now. However the sources look good with respect to signatures, and checksums. Legal aspects look good. Rat shows no show stopper issues: Summary ------- Notes: 13 Binaries: 209 Archives: 0 Standards: 1116 Apache Licensed: 1083 Generated Documents: 0 JavaDocs are generated and so license header is optional Generated files do not required license headers 33 Unknown Licenses Those 33 seem to be in files that do not need headers, cannot have them or are generated. Couple of not so critical nit picking details (forgive me in advance): (1) Might be nice to put sha512 in the sources SHA hash file name so people know we're using SHA 512. I just tried all hash checksums until the last one (sha512) worked. (2) It seems as though Joe's j...@zonker.net RSA key A0207CD4 was used to sign the sources instead of 05CD14DD? All worked out when I pulled that key down and check the signature. gpg apache-cloudstack-4.0.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.asc gpg: Signature made Mon 28 Jan 2013 09:30:51 PM EET using RSA key ID A0207CD4 gpg: Good signature from "Joe Brockmeier (Zonker) <j...@zonker.net>" gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 7CE4 9725 0BE5 0FC6 9CA7 B190 A6D6 E733 A020 7CD4 I'm still going to continue to kick the tires (functional testing) and might report back even after the vote. For the purposes of this vote, the sources and legal matters are most important and at this point I can +1 it: +1 (binding) Great job guys! -- Best Regards, -- Alex
