On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Josh Thompson wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I created a release artifact based off of trunk. I copied trunk to
under the tags area of the repo that is named release-2.1-RC1:
The artifact is an export from that tag. The artifact, MD5 and SHA1
my GPG signature of it are available from my space on people.a.o:
The list of resolved JIRA issues associated with this release can be
the VCL 2.1 release page:
Installation instructions are on the Confluence site and in the
file included in the artifact.
Aaron, Andy, and I have completed a test install of all parts and
were able to
successfully create and capture a base image.
Please vote to publish this release.
(Question to mentors: Do I need to vote in a successive email in
or is this post an implicit vote?)
You should either include an explicit +1 in the initial vote email, or
"reply" in another email. Either is acceptable. I kind of prefer a
separate email, but that's just me...
Most votes will include a formal statement on what the vote is about.
[ ] +1 yes, release VCL 2.1
[ ] 0 dunno
[ ] -1 no, don't release VCL 2.1 (provide reasons).
This is the strangest Apache "release" that I've ever seen... Taking
some getting used to... I have some questions/comments. Haven't
decided on my vote, yet.
* web/.ht-inc/conf.php contains references to Shibboleth and UNC. I
assume that's holdover from VCL's origins.
* Instructions on installation, prereqs, etc should be clear that a
user must determine the licensing of the technologies that you are
requiring/referring to/downloading. It's not clear to me if that
information is being conveyed. Clearly, you require GPL, LGPL, and
microsoft proprietary artifacts. Wondering how much of this needs to
flow through legal-discuss... Prolly Alan and Matt have thought about
* managementnode/bin/install_perl_libs.pl will download install
libraries, IIUC. What are the licenses of these artifacts? Users need
to be made aware of what you are doing for them...