NLPCraft-ers, The vote for Apache NLPCraft 0.7.1 release is closed now. Vote result: the vote PASSES with 8 votes +1 and no -1.
+1 votes: - Nikita Ivanov - Aaron Radzinski - Sergey Kamov - Gleb Ifrops - Sergey Makov - Furkan Kamaci (IPMC) - Konstantin Boudnik (IPMC) - Paul King (IPMC) I will proceed with starting the final vote at IPMC shortly. Thank you, -- Aaron Radzinski On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 12:34 AM Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 [biding] > > Checked all usual things, nothing overly suspicious. And I agree with Paul > on > both counts - keeping KEYS in the version control is a bit unusual and > doesn't > solve anything. > > -- > Cos > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 12:19PM, Paul King wrote: > > One point I forgot - There is certainly mixed practice with regard to > > whether the KEYS file should be checked into the source repo. Some > projects > > place it just on dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release. That way there is a > > single point of truth. Right now the one in the source repo is out of > sync > > with the dist.apache.org one. > > > > Cheers, Paul. > > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 12:11 PM Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Checked hashes and signatures. > > > "mvn clean verify" passes > > > "mvn apache-rat:rat" passes > > > incubating in name > > > DISCLAIMER exists > > > NOTICE seems okay > > > LICENSE seems okay > > > no unexpected binary files > > > > > > Mentoring notes: > > > * You should minimise changes to KEYS since ideally each release > manager > > > would attend a key-signing party and have their key spread amongst > other > > > trusted parties. Then verifiers could verify that the release has been > > > signed not only with a valid key but also from a trusted source. Key > > > signing would need to be repeated each time a release manager's key > > > changes. Key signing isn't mandatory, just highly recommended, but > isn't > > > easy to do right now due to COVID. > > > * For files like NCBlowfishHasher.java, (correctly mentioned in LICENSE > > > and NOTICE, thanks) if the statement "Code almost entirely based on > work of > > > ..." is indeed true, then I believe it is usually clearer to leave the > > > original license header in the source file and perhaps amend with > > > "Subsequent changes Copyright by the NLPCraft team and made under the > > > ASLv2..." but what you have is possibly okay - just not as clear. > IANAL, > > > but my understanding is that you have the obligation to make it clear > that > > > the requirements the original author requested for use of that file in > > > source form etc. are still in play and aren't overwritten by slapping > the > > > ASLv2 header at the front of the file. > > > > > > Cheers, Paul. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:35 AM Aaron Radzinski < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> NLPCraft-ers, > > >> This is a call for a vote to release Apache NLPCraft (incubating) > version > > >> 0.7.1. This release includes bug fixes and incremental improvements > for > > >> NLPCraft 0.7.0 release. > > >> > > >> Release information: > > >> 1. Release location: > > >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/nlpcraft/nlpcraft/0.7.1/ > > >> 3. Git tag: https://github.com/apache/incubator-nlpcraft/tree/v0.7.1 > > >> 4. JIRA issues fixed in release: > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/NLPCRAFT/versions/12347777 > > >> 5. KEYS file: > > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/nlpcraft/KEYS > > >> > > >> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until a necessary > number of > > >> votes are reached. > > >> > > >> Please vote accordingly: > > >> [ ] +1 approve > > >> [ ] +0 no opinion > > >> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > > >> > > >> Thank you, > > >> Aaron (NLPCraft community). > > >> > > > >
