On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was reading into what goes into a release, and based on this I think of > > have to -1 the release from an admin point of view. > > - mvn rat:check looks like it has problems (there are also some in the > > 0.92.0 release) -- attached to this email. > > > I went through a few. Looks like its complaining mostly because of > empty files, files it can't read the apache license in (because its > got xml preamble), etc. I'd say this is important but my guess is > that 0.90.5 wasn't much better. I'd suggest we could file an issue to > fix this in 0.90.7/0.92.1 but that maybe its not enough to sink the > release? > > I chatted with some of the apache veterans, and I'm going to stand by the -1 unless the licenses are fixed. It should be trivial fix.
See this: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html "What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?" That said, release votes are by majority, and there is no veto: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Jon. -- // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) // Software Engineer, Cloudera // [email protected]
