Thomas Dudziak wrote: > 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.
Derby includes signatures on release candidates, so the signatures can be verified as part of the review. Incubator does the same. -jean >> 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
