Hi, Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) from me.
To be clear that doesn’t stop other people voting +1, and if you get 3+1 you can still put it up on the IPMC general list for a vote. You’re also welcome to try and change my mind, anyone can change their vote after initial voting. All the -1 means is I wouldn’t release it, but what makes a release good enough quality to release is going to vary form person to person an that’s all OK. I would however expect that in the currently form it may not pass an IPMC vote. It’s very close however and there only a couple of missing things. I checked: - release artefacts are missing incubating from their names [1][2] - signatures OK but not sure re hashes - missing DISCLAIMER in release artefacts [3] - LICENSE(s) all good - NOTICE good but missing original developer (runtime) - newt doesn’t have a REAME at the top level - no unexpected binary files in the releases - all Apache source file have Apache headers / no double headers I could find - not sure how to compile the source repos - some instruction on this in the releases would be nice How were the hashes generated? I’m seeing this: $ openssl sha1 larva-0.8.0-b1.tgz SHA1(larva-0.8.0-b1.tgz)= 99b15843d0a5af3f3d7dbdcb52afb80144ee1255 $ cat larva-0.8.0-b1.tgz.sha /Users/ccollins/tmp/rel/bin/larva-0.8.0-b1.tgz: 51915329 EE9E17F8 7517C2B6 1C99268B 9AAA478D 2C85AA0B B036276D 4B980A11 9BE18DEB 471E762A A80CB4D5 7478390E 60A0EAE1 0481F723 5FFE83A8 6990D700 You probably want to remove "/Users/ccollins/tmp/rel/bin/larva-0.8.0-b1.tgz:” from that file. Some possible improvements: - Re naming it's a good idea to add apache to the name as well as I believe it gives some extra legal protection / shows it’s an apache product. - It a good idea to sign the artefacts with an apache email address. Thanks, Justin 1. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming 2. http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases (note the word MUST) 3. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list
