On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "ant elder" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 1:44 AM
> To: <[email protected]>
> Subject: [VOTE] Release Tuscany SCA 2.0 M2 RC2
>
>> Please review and vote on RC2 of the SCA 2.0-M2 release.
>>
>> The distribution artifacts, RAT reports, and Maven staging repository
>> are available for review at:
>> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/2.0-M2-RC2/
>>
>> The release tag is available at :
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/tags/java/sca/2.0-M2/
>>
>> +1 from me.
>>
>> ...ant
>
-1 from me.
There are a few license funnies...
assembly-xsd
now has OASIS xsd but doesn't include OASIS details in LICENSE or NOTICE file
Top level LICENSE
doesn't include OASIS details
doesn't include
geronimo-el_1.0_spec-1.0.1.jar
geronimo-jsp_2.1_spec-1.0.1.jar
geronimo-jta_1.1_spec-1.1.1.jar
regexp-1.3.jar
Top level NOTICE
doesn't include OASIS details
implementation-web-runtime
now has sca.tld but doesn't include OSOA details in LICENSE/NOTICE
host-webapp
no longer has sca.tld but does include OSOA details in LICENSE/NOTICE
I can go ahead and fix the easy things but where are we with the OASIS
LICENSE question?
I've run the sample and they are OK although there are a few
non-blocking issues in the READMEs that I'll try and tidy up.
I notice that not all of the things in the source release are in the
binary release. This is not a problem per-se but want to check that
this is intentional, in particular..
samples/webapp
modules/wicket
Were the obvious ones.
I'll try a source build but our auto testing is pretty good on that so
I'll post back here if I have problems.
Regards
Simon
