+1 I will do this today. Regards,
Rajith On 12/1/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/1/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/28/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Please vote to publish the Milestone 1 release. Please take some time > >s to download the distributions, review them and test them in your environment > > if you have not done so already before voting. > > +1 Although I just voted +1 for this release, I do think the MINA_README.txt wording could still be improved; I just didn't think it was essential for this release. The two improvements would be to fix grammatical errors and to change the URLs to http rather than https. Committers should know to use https, but others with write-access may be confused. Regarding the grammatical changes, the file currently reads, "However, I would have chosen different words for the MINA_README file. It currently reads: "The current MINA version is taken from rev 463149. If you need to get the source please visit https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mina/trunk If you do svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mina/trunk -r463149 visit http://mina.apache.org/ to get more info about the project" So, I think the second and third line should be s/http/https/, but the second through fourth lines also just don't read very clearly. I guess my suggestion would be: "This Qpid distribution includes a snapshot of MINA that has not been released by the Apache MINA project. The snapshot is taken from MINA rev 463149. To obtain the associated source code, use a Subversion client to access the repository and check out this revision using the following command: svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mina/trunk -r463149 For more information about MINA, visit http://mina.apache.org/."; I personally think it would be worth updating the file before releasing M1. I also don't think such a minor update to a README file has any chance of affecting the votes already cast (I would feel very differently about a major text change or about *any* code change). So, while I don't think it has to be changed for this release, I also don't see a problem if one of the committers thinks it's worth updating now rather than for M2. However, if there's any concern at all about the wording or the process, it would probably be best to leave it for M2. Cliff
