Re: [] release of Apache Jena SDB 1.3.5

[Andy Seaborne]

On 11/10/12 00:06, Damian Steer wrote:

On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Andy Seaborne <andy.seabo...@epimorphics.com> wrote:


Here is a vote on a release build for Jena SDB 1.3.5

Please vote to approve this release:

  [ ] +1 Approve the release
  [ ]  0 Don't care
  [ ] -1 Don't release, because ...

+1

This vote will be open to the end of
Saturday, October 13, 2012
(72 hours from the same hour tonight UTC).

    Andy


Checking needed:

Not needed: the community tested the code so performing the checks except being 
about to run the code is helpful.

    is the GPG signature fine?
    is there a source archive?
    can the source archive really be built?
    is there a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file in each artifact
      (both source and binary artifacts)?
    check the dependencies.
    if there is a tag in the SCM, does it contain reproducible sources?

All fine.

    does the NOTICE file contain all necessary attributions?

Minor: H2 was contributed by Martin Hein. Should that be mentioned here? It is 
noted in the files themselves.

Thanks for checking.

The NOTICE file is for required acknowledgements (for example, where the 
license says "you must acknowledge") and there is a style of keeping it 
minimal.  i.e. not using it as acknowledgement of each and every 
contributor.  The SDB distribution NOTICE is longer then than the 
codebase one because the distribution is reshipping other binaries under 
license.  The NOTICE file is the concat of the NOTICE files of the 
included material.

Well - that's the (incubator-general) theory.  If you look around at 
other NOTICE files they mostly like that but not always minimal.

No reason not to have an ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS file either just in the 
codebase or included in the distribution.

        Andy


Thanks Andy,

Damian