+1 Let's constitute the changes in a new release candidate. On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for b) > > I'm organizing + merging the commits that need to go the new candidate > right now. Will let you know, when I am done. > > 2015-06-12 14:03 GMT+02:00 Till Rohrmann <till.rohrm...@gmail.com>: > > > I'm in favour of option b) as well. > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:05 PM Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Yes, the LICENSE files are definitely a release blocker. > > > > > > a) Either we wait with the RC until we have fixed the LICENSES, or > > > > > > b) Put out next RC to continue with testing and then update it with the > > > LICENSE [either we find something before the LICENSE update or we only > > have > > > to review the LICENSE change] > > > > > > Since this is not a vote yet, it doesn't really matter, but I'm leaning > > > towards b). > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Till Rohrmann < > till.rohrm...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > What about the shaded jars? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:32 AM Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > @Max: for the new RC. Can you make sure to set the variables > > correctly > > > > > with regard to stable/snapshot versions in the docs? > > > > > > > > > >
