>>However the missing DISCLAIMER file from the rave-commons jar artifact >>IMO is >>not acceptable and therefore I think I'll have to vote -1 :( > >I will create issues for the fixing the files and assign them to 0.3. > >The real question now is, do we fix them and spin 0.3 now or do we just >wait for next month?
I think it's a good idea to go ahead and log, fix and verify the issues Ate identified now, but I think we should just wait for next month to do the actual 0.3 release. I don't think there is any real need to jump to 0.3 just to push out a release out at this point. I think the value in the monthly releases right now is to keep pushing things forward (setting a target date, pushing to get the tickets implemented, etc) and I think what's been done for 0.2 has realized that value already. >> >>Ate >> >>On 07/29/2011 10:10 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: >>> Discussion thread for vote on 0.2-incubating release candidate. >>> >>> For more information on the release process, checkout - >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html >>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html >>> >>> Some of the things to check before voting are: >>> - can you run the demo binaries >>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag >>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE, NOTICE >>>and >>> DISCLAIMER files >>> - are all of the staged jars signed and the signature verifiable >>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server >>> >> >
