+ are the checksums correct?
Bother.
I'll cancel the vote and restart it. The checksums should be included,
well, at least the source-release one.
Andy
You didn't say what is the hash of the source-release.zip, so I have
assumed the below:
sha1:
On 09/03/15 10:39, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
-1: Release notes not updated. Everything else fine.
Thank you for the checking.
WARNING: Release notes are missing for 2.13.0
source/jena-2.13.0/jena-core/ReleaseNotes.txt
binaries/apache-jena-2.13.0/ReleaseNotes-Jena.txt
does NOT mention
On 9 Mar 2015 12:10, Andy Seaborne
Could you explain why that is a -1, not 0 or even a conditional +1?
Release notes are useful to some people but it does not affect the
question of whether the release process has been executed correctly.
I was not sure of the practise here, and would have
-1: Release notes not updated. Everything else fine.
WARNING: Release notes are missing for 2.13.0
source/jena-2.13.0/jena-core/ReleaseNotes.txt
binaries/apache-jena-2.13.0/ReleaseNotes-Jena.txt
does NOT mention 2.12.1 or 2.13.0
+ are the checksums correct?
You didn't say what is the hash
Hi,
Here is a vote on a release of Jena 2.13.0.
This is the first release candidate for this release.
Everyone, not just committers, is invited to test and vote.
(We do need at least 3 PMC +1's but the more it's tested, the better.)
Staging repository:
On 08/03/15 12:12, Andy Seaborne wrote:
Hi,
Here is a vote on a release of Jena 2.13.0.
Git Commit Hash:
ecaa41eefdcb79f16bd4b9525b89309f8282ca47
Git Commit Tag:
jena-2.13.0-rc1
New since last release:
Elephas
Fuseki2
OSGi
Please vote to approve this release:
[ ] +1
