Thanks for the reviews. We’ll restart the vote once the updated RC is ready.
-- LICENSE/NOTICE are good (including content in the licenses folder). NB: > personally, for BSD and MIT licenses, I prefer to have the actual > dependency license more than the "generic" one as it contains the > copyright. For instance, I would prefer licenses/pcollections.license > (specific) instead of licenses/mit.txt (generic). But that's a detail :) @JB — It's good advice, we’ll take that into account when fixing the binary artifacts. The source package looks good, but the binary package has the following > issues: > 1. The Jakarta RESTful Web Services API (jakarta.ws.rs:jakarta.ws.rs-api) > is licensed under the EPL. As such, there is no requirement to add > additional statements to the NOTICE file for this dependency. As far as I > know, only the Apache License 2.0 (ALv2) imposes explicit requirements for > modifying the NOTICE file. > 2.The binary package includes components such as Netty, but these are not > reflected in the NOTICE file. > 3. For non-standard Apache License 2.0 license texts, we are also required > to explicitly include them(binary package). @Calvin — We’ll address the binary NOTICE and LICENSE issues you pointed out. Best, On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 1:33 PM Calvin Kirs <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 1:31 PM Calvin Kirs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -1(binding) apologies for the late vote. > > > > > > I checked: > > - incubating in name > > - signatures and hashes are fine > > - disclaimer exists > > - file has correct ASF headers if necessary > > > > The source package looks good, but the binary package has the following > > issues: > > > > 1. The Jakarta RESTful Web Services API (jakarta.ws.rs: > jakarta.ws.rs-api) > > is licensed under the EPL. As such, there is no requirement to add > > additional statements to the NOTICE file for this dependency. As far as I > > know, only the Apache License 2.0 (ALv2) imposes explicit requirements > for > > modifying the NOTICE file. > > > > > > 2.The binary package includes components such as Netty, but these are not > > reflected in the NOTICE file. > > > > > > 3. For non-standard Apache License 2.0 license texts, we are also > required > > to explicitly include them(binary package). > > > > FYI https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html > > > > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 9:04 PM Christofer Dutz < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Carrying over my +1 (binding) from the dev-list. > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> Von: Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > >> Datum: Mittwoch, 24. Dezember 2025 um 08:38 > >> An: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache BifroMQ 4.0.0-incubating RC2 > >> > >> +1 (binding) > >> > >> I checked: > >> - source distribution > >> -- incubating is in the name/version > >> -- checksum/signature are good > >> -- DISCLAIMER is present > >> -- LICENSE/NOTICE are good > >> -- ASF header present in expected files > >> -- No binary/compiled file found > >> -- I was able to compile from the source with ./mvnw clean install > >> -DskipTests (I had to skip tests on the first run to avoid artifact > >> resolution issue in the tests). > >> - binary distribution > >> -- incubating is in the name/version > >> -- checksum/signature are good > >> -- DISCLAIMER is present > >> -- LICENSE/NOTICE are good (including content in the licenses folder). > NB: > >> personally, for BSD and MIT licenses, I prefer to have the actual > >> dependency license more than the "generic" one as it contains the > >> copyright. For instance, I would prefer licenses/pcollections.license > >> (specific) instead of licenses/mit.txt (generic). But that's a detail :) > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 4:38 AM Yonny Hao <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > The Apache BifroMQ community has voted on releasing Apache BifroMQ > >> > 4.0.0-incubating RC2. We would now like to call for a vote from the > >> > Incubator PMC to release this version. > >> > > >> > *Community vote thread*: > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/l7ngk38zf5kmt7jvwqjx5kpw9hqxmqqz > >> > > >> > *Vote result thread*: > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/wh063yoc7d72kvxh52chgzl8dmxfkjhw > >> > > >> > *The Release candidate*: > >> > > >> > > >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/bifromq/4.0.0-incubating-RC2/ > >> > > >> > *Git tag and commit*: > >> > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/bifromq/commit/878c0fc70d8346fd22fa1b52ec960728ebcec5bc > >> > (tag: v4.0.0-incubating-RC2, hash:878c0fc) > >> > > >> > *Release notes*: > >> > https://github.com/apache/bifromq/releases/tag/v4.0.0-incubating-RC2 > >> > > >> > *PGP KEYS*: > >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/bifromq/KEYS > >> (signer: > >> > [email protected]) > >> > > >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > >> > - [ ] +1 approve > >> > - [ ] +0 no opinion > >> > - [ ] -1 do not approve (please state your reasons) > >> > > >> > Additional information about Apache BifroMQ is available at: > >> > https://bifromq.apache.org/ > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > – > >> > Yonny (Yu) Hao > >> > on behalf of the Apache BifroMQ community > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > Best wishes！ > > CalvinKirs > > > > > -- > Best wishes！ > CalvinKirs > -- Yonny(Yu) Hao
