Note : this thread deserves to be on a public mailing list. Moved it there.
On 2/10/11 10:53 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
Yes Felix, I agree.
I run the release process till item 6 of [3] which went smooth.
But I found some issues, so I may rollback and run it again:
- In LICENSE we list the Bouncy Castle license, however I don't find a
reference where we use it in shared. So we should remove it from
LICENSE.
BC is used in apacheds, not anymore in shared. We replaced the classes
(DER stuff) we copied from BC code last november.
- The RAT report lists one file: file-review.txt. I think that file
isn't helpful any more because many files were moved around. Can we
remove it?
rm file-review.txt
- The shared-all jar includes all transitive dependencies (slf4j,
antlr, etc.), but the LICENSE and NOTICE files are not correct, that
needs to be fixed.
+1
Another question:
Which artifacts do we ant to release to http://www.apache.org/dist/directory?
- None?
- Only the source (the new org.apache:apache:8 POM configures the
assembly plugin to generate a source-release zip [4])
- Source and binary
IMO, source and binary. Note that it's good for shared, not for Studio
or ADS : installers should not be injected in the repo, AFAIU.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
