Regarding the STATUS document, I think the policy say we must include them, check [1] on the "Release Documentation" and "STATUS document" sessions. Also our STATUS file is not up to date, and I can take care of helping updating that after I finish reviewing the rest of the release candidate.
[1] - http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html On 5/21/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey many thanks for the prompt and detailed review. I can't remember exactly about the STATUS file, i think it may be an old requirement that is no longer necessary. I can find this incubator-general email [1] about the recent CXF release which included and old and incorrect status file, and the guidance from an IPMC member was its ok to just remove it from the distro, so i think its fine we don't include this. All these other comments seem like good things we should do in future, if we do have to respin the 0.90 distro's for some other reason I'll try to incorporate some of them. Thanks, ...ant [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200705.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/21/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ant, > I've had a good poke around and built the source distro and run the > tests > successfully. The only potential blocking issue I have found is that > absence > of a STATUS file, which it was my understanding should be copied in from > the project's STATUS file into every distribution, but I haven't been > able > to re-find that guidance in the apache site. Can anyone help clarify this > please? > > The rest of these comments are all minor observations that wouldn't stop > me > +1-ing the release. Indeed, some of them may result in clarification that > what you have done is corrent and that will help SDO in future releases? > > I've had comments in the past that Apache like it if the names of the > release file names include the "apache-" prefix > > I think the copyright in the NOTICES file at the top level of the source > distro should include 2005 > > I thought that the intention of the BUILDING file was to guide a person > who > has downloaded the source distribution to be able to recreate the > distribution files, not just to compile and test? I can't re-find the > guidance on that having searched that apache site. > > The LICENSE file in binary distro contains CPL 1.0 twice, once for wsdl4j > and then at the bottom for Jruby. > > It would be really helpful to include a package.html file for each package > so that the javadoc gives an overview of what each package does. > > Cheers, Kelvin. > > > On 20/05/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Please review and vote on the 0.90 release artifacts of Tuscany SCA for > > Java. > > > > The artifacts are available for review at: > > http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/0.90-rc1/ > > > > This includes the binary and source distributions, the RAT reports, and > > the > > Maven staging repository. > > > > The SVN tag for the release is: > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sca/0.90-incubating/ > > > > Looks ok to me so here's my +1. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > ...ant > > >
-- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
