Ok - then let's cancel the vote.

I should be able to restart it some time next week.

On 7 July 2015 at 09:42, Timothy Ward <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I think I’m right in saying that the Apache release process needs the source 
> headers for approval. :(
>
> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#full-copy-for-each-source-file
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
>
>> On 6 Jul 2015, at 08:27, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> I think that's pretty much always how it happens for something that is
>> in the process of being released. You can add the staging repository
>> to your maven repos and then you should be able to rebuild from
>> sources. Does someone have a better way of doing this?
>>
>> If people think I should re-spin the release because of the headers,
>> let me know.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 4 July 2015 at 00:23, Timothy Ward <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> So the good news is that the release versions all pass the relevant 
>>> compliance tests for their respective specifications, but I have noted two 
>>> issues…
>>>
>>> I’m unable to build from source unless I re-version all of the bundles to 
>>> 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT and do a mvn clean install first. If I fail to do this then 
>>> the version checker fails the build. Once I have 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT versions in 
>>> my local repository then everything works fine.
>>> The RAT check fails because the source files are missing Apache licence 
>>> headers (my fault originally). This applies to the Promise API 
>>> implementation and the Async API and Async Impl bundles. I’m not sure what 
>>> the policy is for licence headers on the classes/interfaces in the 
>>> org.osgi.xxx namespace.
>>>
>>> In summary, I’m +1 for the binaries, which work and contain all of the 
>>> necessary licence info. I’m not sure if we need to respin for the 
>>> source/build issues though.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>> On 3 Jul 2015, at 16:42, Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> Sergey
>>>> On 03/07/15 12:55, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Here's my +1
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3 July 2015 at 11:36,  <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm calling a vote on the first release of the Aries Asynchronous OSGi
>>>>>> Services implementation. This implements the OSGi Asynchronous
>>>>>> Services specification (chapter 138) and the OSGi Promises
>>>>>> specification (chapter 705) of the upcoming OSGi Enterprise R6
>>>>>> specifications, which are available as proposed final draft [1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Staging repository:
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-1031
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For details on getting started see
>>>>>> http://aries.apache.org/modules/async-svcs.html
>>>>>> Kudos to Tim Ward for providing this implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please vote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 Approve the release
>>>>>> -1 Do not approve the release (please explain why)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Bosschaert
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/Drafts
>>>>
>>>
>

Reply via email to