On 26 March 2013 12:18, Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/24/13 18:21, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >> >> On 03/24/13 09:26, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >>> >>> On 03/23/13 11:39, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >>>> >>>> Unless anyone jumps in sometime soon with an issue with the latest[1] >>>> snapshot[2], following the guidelines[3] I hope to cut a 0.9 and upload >>>> it to the staging repository. >>> >>> >>> Hopefully we have lazy consensus on this. I hope to cut this later today. >> >> >> After a little bit of a battle, I've pushed to staging[1]. Before I move >> on to a VOTE, I hope to take a look using tentacles > > > Unfortunately, I didn't check that the build for the apache-rat runnable > uber-jar uses the maven-shade plugin :-( This means that the jar is missing > NOTICE files for the Apache Licensed dependencies included within the jar. > Apologies. > > All the dependences involved are Apache Software Foundation releases. Unless > anyone spots something, I can't see this mistake posing a legal risk to > downstream users. > > So, unless anyone jumps in, I'll just go ahead to fix the issue in trunk, > delete the staging repository and then think about cut another candidate. > > I'm less sure about the best approach to numbering this new candidate. (In > the past, I've cut release candidates first. Even with a staging repository > this would have been sensible.) I lean towards 0.9.1, eliminating any risk > that two signed 0.9 could escape into the wild. > > Opinions? Objections? Suggestions?
Not sure you need to worry about the files escaping from the staging repo - that's part of the point, they are not yet published files. So long as you delete the repo they won't be published. > Robert
