Truth be told, I was "on the fence" with regard to the LICENSE in the Go runtime, but weighed on the side of release; how hard would it be to re-issue the Go runtime release?
On 2019/04/04 15:16:25, "David P Grove" <gro...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > I ran the rcverify.sh script on all artifacts and inspected all reported > failures. > > I am +1 to release the following 8 runtimes: > openwhisk-runtime-docker 'OpenWhisk Runtime Docker' 1.13.0-incubating > openwhisk-runtime-dotnet 'OpenWhisk Runtime Dotnet' 1.13.0-incubating > openwhisk-runtime-java 'OpenWhisk Runtime Java' 1.13.0-incubating > openwhisk-runtime-nodejs 'OpenWhisk Runtime Node.js' 1.13.0-incubating > openwhisk-runtime-php 'OpenWhisk Runtime PHP' 1.13.0-incubating > openwhisk-runtime-python 'OpenWhisk Runtime Python' 1.13.0-incubating > openwhisk-runtime-ruby 'OpenWhisk Runtime Ruby' 1.13.0-incubating > openwhisk-runtime-swift 'OpenWhisk Runtime Swift' 1.13.0-incubating > > > I am -1 to release > openwhisk-runtime-go 'OpenWhisk Runtime Go' 1.13.0-incubating > because of the discussion around the contents of its LICENSE file on this > voting thread. As this is the first release of this component, I think we > would be better to get the LICENSE 100% correct and do a second release > candidate for this specific runtime. > > --dave >
