On 1/2/07, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please review these artifacts, signatures and checksums, and vote whether we should release them as Apache Shale version 1.0.4. --8<-------------------------------------------- [X] +1 (Binding) for PMC members only [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits [ ] +0 [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released ------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Rahul for all the grunt work to pull this release together! I have been through it with a medium-to-fine grained comb :-), and cannot find any showstopper issues. That being said, here's some notes for us to think about in the future: * The sample apps have the version number in their archive names, but the embedded directory, and the name of the WAR file inside, does not. Looking at the entire release, I have a mild preference for including the version number everywhere it's relevant. * The NOTICE.txt files all contain the attribution to David Geary and Cay Horstmann for the code originally published in Core JavaServer Faces. This was exactly correct up to 1.0.3, but when we split everything up, I *think* the only module that actually contains such code is the shale-validator module (and we'd also want the attribution in the top level framework notice as well). That will need to be researched before we change anything, though. * In addition to not publishing the POMs for shale-master and shale-apps in a standalone artifact (see previous discussion in this thread), we are also not publishing the sources to the top level website. That's OK since they are accessible via SVN, but we should include these files in any discussion of what to do about the POMs. Craig
