I reviewed the rat reports, checked the asc signatures, did a cursory
review of DISCLAIMER, NOTICE, and LICENSE files in a couple of the src
and bin files, and it all looks good to me.
+1
btw, the way you provide the rat reports up front is *very* helpful.
-jean
Michael Baessler wrote:
The Apache UIMA committers ask the Apache Incubator PMC for permission
to publish a new bug fix release of Apache UIMA. This release contains
bug fixes of the Apache UIMA 2.2.0 release published in August 2007.
For details about the fixes, please have a look at the release notes.
We had a vote on uima-dev that resulted in 6 binding +1s
(all the committers) and no 0s or -1s. The vote thread
is here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-uima-dev/200712.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please review the release candidate here:
http://people.apache.org/~mbaessler/uimaj-2.2.1/06/
There are subdirectories like:
/bin - that contains the binary distribution files
/src - that contains the source distribution files
/rat - that contains the RAT reports (using RAT 0.5.1) with some
comments /eclipseUpdateSite - that contains the eclipse update site
artifacts
/maven - that contains the Maven artifacts we would like to release to
the incubator repository
The SVN tag for this release candidate is:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/uima/uimaj/tags/uimaj-2.2.1/uimaj-2.2.1-06
Please vote:
[ ] +1 Accept to release Apache UIMA 2.2.1
[ ] -1 No, because....
Thanks!
-- Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
