On 5/11/07, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ok, but any build that gets voted on to become a release must have those signatures (we vote on the actual bits that get released).
Well, yes, but we only sign releases, not release candidates (which are not releases per definition). Or to put it differently, signing the artifacts is part of the release process, not of the released artifacts for which the vote was put forward.
from what I've seen, it's more common than not to include a src distribution.
Yeah, not to mention that I like downloading src distributions so that I can attach source files to libraries that I use :-)
The apply-license.html page says a txt extension is permitted (big warning: this page isn't in complete sync yet with http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html): http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#license-file-name In other words, a txt extension isn't necessary. :-)
Yeah, and I prefer having them - makes life easier for those non-*nix users, where a missing file extension confuses the 'shell' :-) cheers, Tom
