On Dec 19, 2007 11:16 PM, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually the guidelines for Release Voting [1] make no stipulation on the > detail of inspection. I performed a cursory inspection and compared the > contents and layout to previous release stagings. I am using this current > version in three projects without issue, so at a functional level I believe > this release to be ready. > > I admittedly have not double checked the checksums or MANIFEST files, but > from a license perspective we cleared up all those issues quite a while ago. > > My vote stands.
... and it is up to the release mgr to accept a -1 or not. There are no vetos; Since I care on the right location of license/notice files, I voted -1 (that means like I am not supporting the release as it is today) not sure what went wrong in this release, since the 1.2.0 and the 1.1.x license/notice files were OK -M > > > [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes > > > > > On 12/19/07, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 11:54 -0800, Grant Smith wrote: > > > +1 > > > > That was very quick, Grant! > > > > Have you really inspected all the artifacts Leonardo created to see if > > they are right? Licenses need to be correct, MANIFEST files should be > > double-checked, checksums verified, etc. > > > > Regards, > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > -- > Grant Smith > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
