Hi,
+1 from me (binding, carrying over my vote).
I checked:
- LICENSE and NOTICE are fine
- No unexpected binary files
- Checked PGP signatures
- Checked checksums
- Code compiles and tests successfully run
- Apache rat checks are OK
Kind Regards,
Furkan KAMACI
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 3:52 PM
+1 carrying forward my dev vote after the license/notice tweaks
I don't think there is an issue with the license of the file mentioned,
just the appropriate changes to the license/notice wording to ensure the
licensing condition is properly understandable. And I think some other
tweaks to
Hi, +1 binding. I checked,
[x] Download links are valid.
[x] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
[x] LICENSE, NOTICE and DISCLAIMER-WIP files are fine.
[x] All files have license headers if necessary.
[ ] Do not build source code.
Hi,
Sorry but it’s -1 binding as the LICENSE and NOTICE isn’t correct
I checked;
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes are correct
- LICENSE is not correct, moby is mentioned twice and it is missing mention of
code Copyright (C) Peet Goddard in [1] and I’m not sure how this code is
+1 (binding), some minor issues are expected to fixed in next release.
- Source tar is signed by aradzin...@datalingvo.com, it’s better to sign with
your @apache.org account.
- Sha shum is correct.
- LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER exist.
- License headers exist in files where applicable, except
+1 (non-binding) from me, I have checked the following items:
- incubating in name
- NOTICE is fine
- DISCLAIMER exists
- All links are valid
- No unexpected binary files
- All ASF files have ASF headers
Best regards
Xun Liu
https://github.com/xunliu
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 12:47 PM Dave
FYI -
This release did receive 3 binding IPMC votes on the dev list. In this case I
think that the IPMC ought to contemplate using LAZY CONSENSUS Votes.
Requirements are already met
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 13, 2021, at 10:42 AM, Aaron Radzinski wrote:
> Hello all,
> This is a call
FYI -
This release did receive 3 binding IPMC mentor votes on the dev list. In this
case I think that the IPMC ought to explicitly contemplate using LAZY CONSENSUS
Votes. Requirements are already met. What purpose other than reviewing the
mentors does more than a notification serve?
All the
Hi, there
+1 (non-binding) from me, I have checked the following items:
* All links are valid (but the line about the link for KEYS file is broken)
* No binary assets in the release package
* LICENSE and NOTICE files are packed in the release package
* Checksum and signature are both good.
Best
