+1 I checked source, digital signature/checksums, and build. A few non-
blocking issues:
1) KEYS -- I don't see your digital key in the KEYS file. Would also
prefer that you sign your key with an apache.org email address, rather
than yahoo. There are multiple KEYS files floating about svn and dists/
geronimo, etc. Would be best, IMO, to use SVN geronimo/KEYS and sync
dists/geronimo/KEYS with that.
2) NOTICE file in geronimo-jpa jar Says:
JPA 1.0
Copyright 2003-2009 The Apache Software Foundation
It should say something like "Apache Geronimo Specs: JPA 1.0"
3) Could I convince you to include the SVN tag in your vote email?
Letter of the law, IIUC, we're voting on the source-release files that
you've prepared. But good to validate that actually corresponds to
what's in svn...
And finally -- Thanks David!
--kevan
On Sep 15, 2009, at 4:05 PM, David Jencks wrote:
After some discussion with the openjpa folks it seems like its a
good idea to re-release our jpa 1 spec with an aritfactId of
geronimo-jpa_1.0_spec rather than the original 3.0 version number.
We don't really have a plan for what to do when jpa actually gets a
3.0 spec, but we don't have to deal with that for a bit.
This is the same as the previous geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec but with
updated build, license files, release profile, and of course
artifactId. As an osgi bundle it imports what it exports.
Staged here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/geronimo-staging-021/
site staged here:
http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-site/maven/specs/geronimo-jpa_1.0_spec/1.1.2/
[ ] +1 yes
[ ] 0 dunno
[ ] -1 no
Vote open 72 hours
many thanks
david jencks
