Hi Thomas, Congratulations on the milestone.
On May 11, 2007, at 10:52 AM, 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 thosesignatures (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.
Part of the vetting process for a release is to check that the signatures are ok (verify the signature is valid, looking for the signature in the KEYS file, etc.) Once the release bits (including signatures and checksums) are voted, it's not ok to change (add or remove) anything.
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 :-)
I've heard folks say that "Apache is an open source organization, and the releases are source releases". Projects are free to release binaries as a convenience to users who might not want to build, but it's not the primary objective.
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' :-)
Yeah, it's your choice whether to use an extension or not. Craig
cheers, Tom
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
