On 14 September 2013 17:09, Jeremy Boynes <jboy...@apache.org> wrote: > On Aug 7, 2013, at 4:41 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2 August 2013 20:32, Jeremy Boynes <jboy...@apache.org> wrote: >>> A proposed release candidate Apache Taglibs 1.2.0-RC1 is now available for >>> voting. >>> >>> This is release candidate for an implementation of JSTL 1.2 and can be >>> obtained from the staging repo at: >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomcat-053/ >>> >>> The source distribution can be obtained from: >>> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetomcat-053/org/apache/taglibs/taglibs-standard/1.2.0-RC1/ >>> >>> The proposed 1.2.0-RC1 candidate is: >>> [X] Broken - do not release >>> [ ] Alpha - can be released as 1.2.0-RC1 alpha >>> >>> This is the first release in a long time, and the first since switching to >>> Maven. If there are issues, please list all concerns so they can be >>> addressed. >> >> Please include the SVN tag and revision number in all vote e-mails. >> >> Otherwise it's not possible to check provenance of the the source files. >> Nor can one check if there are files missing from the source archive >> (or accidentally added). >> >> A link to the KEYS file should also be included so the sigs can be checked. >> >> == >> >> The NOTICE file says: >>>>> >> Apache Tomcat Standard Taglib >> Copyright 2001-2012 The Apache Software Foundation >> >> This product includes software developed by >> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). >> <<< >> >> The year should possibly be updated to 2013. >> >> "developed by" MUST be changed to "developed at" >> >> The NOTICE files in the META-INF jar directories don't have the full >> name of the component. The name must include the "Apache Tomcat >> Standard Taglib" prefix. However, the NOTICE files do say "developed >> at". >> >> There are several files without AL headers. >> >> Several source files contain the SVN tag $Date$. >> This is generated using the local timezone, so the source archive will >> be different depending where it is generated. Best to avoid $Date$; if >> you want a date, use $Id$ instead, though $Revision$ should be >> sufficient. >> >> The source archive top-level directory includes the suffix RC1; that is >> unusual. >> >> The file JSTLVariableStackTest.java does not have svn:eolstyle native set. >> The file ParamSupport.java is marked as executable in SVN props. > > I think addressed those issues in the following changes: > http://svn.apache.org/r1512150 > http://svn.apache.org/r1512151 > http://svn.apache.org/r1512153 > http://svn.apache.org/r1512158
BTW, there was no need to drop @version entirely; it was only the $Date$ part that causes problems. > http://svn.apache.org/r1512166 > http://svn.apache.org/r1512172 Those changes look OK at first glance. > except for the "several files without AL headers." I'll look to see which > those are but pointers would help. I just ran RAT. Sorry, but I did not keep the report. > After those changes do you see any additional problems? Not sure without an RC. > Thanks > Jeremy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
