[7] has been fixed. Tom's comments lead me to think that [8][9][10] can be removed from the release.
I'm not totally clear on what we need to do to resolve the licensing issues [5] and [6]. Do we simply need to give attribution to these projects in our LICENSE.txt file? On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Matt Post <p...@cs.jhu.edu> wrote: > Hi folks, > > What's the status of this? Can we check off items from the list below that > have been completed? > > matt > > > > On Nov 29, 2016, at 4:24 PM, lewis john mcgibbney <lewi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi Folks, > > We have a number of issues to fix which were picked up over on general@. > In > > particular, we received excellent feedback from my good friend Justin > [12] > > [13]. As the general@ VOTE has not had 72 hours to stew I am not going > to > > close it, however we should take this time to fix the issues with master > > before we spin an RC#3. These can be summarized as follows. > > I've opened a Jira issue to track all of this. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JOSHUA-324 > > Lets track the progress on the Jira ticket. > > > > ========================== > > - Your missing incubating in the release artifacts name. [1] > > - There are a number of binary files in the source release that look to > be > > compiled source code. > > > > I checked: > > - name doesn’t include incubating > > - signatures and hashes correct > > - DISCLAIMER exists > > - LICENSE is missing a few things (see below) > > - a source file is missing an Apache header [7] > > - Several unexpected binary files are contained in the source release > > [8][9][10][11] > > - Can compile from source > > > > License is missing: > > - MIT licensed normalize.css v3.0.3 bundled in [5] > > - glyph icon fonts [6] > > > > Not an issue but it's a little odd to have LICENSE and NOTICE.txt - > usually > > both are bare or both have .txt extension. > > > > Also while looking at your site I noticed that the download links of you > > incubating site [2] points to github, please change to point to the > offical > > release area. > > Also the 6.1 release has already been tagged and it available for public > > download on github [4] before this vote is finished. This is IMO against > > Apache release policy [3] please remove. > > > > I also notice you recently released the language packs (18th Nov) but > there > > doesn’t seem to have been a vote for that? Any reason for this? > > =========================== > > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy. > html#Releases > > [2] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/JOSHUA/ > Apache+Joshua+%28Incubating%29+Home > > [3] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what > > [4] https://github.com/apache/incubator-joshua/releases > > [5] ./demo/bootstrap/css/bootstrap.min.css > > [6] apache-joshua-6.1/demo/bootstrap/fonts/* > > [7] ./src/test/java/org/apache/joshua/decoder/ff/tm/OwnerMapTest.java > > [8] ./bin/GIZA++ > > [9] ./bin/mkcls > > [10 ]./bin/snt2cooc.out > > [11] ,/src/test/resources/berkeley_lm/lm.berkeleylm.gz > > [12] > > http://www.mail-archive.com/general%40incubator.apache.org/msg57543.html > > [13] > > http://www.mail-archive.com/general%40incubator.apache.org/msg57551.html > > > > > > -- > > http://home.apache.org/~lewismc/ > > @hectorMcSpector > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/lmcgibbney > >