The NOTICE file contains the following text: "Apache Edgent is currently undergoing Incubation at the Apache Software Foundation."
That does not belong there. On 11 December 2017 at 12:02, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > Hi Seb, > > we have stopped distributing binary release archives as with this release > we’ll be starting to use Maven for distributing binary artifacts: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheedgent-1002/org/apache/edgent/edgent-parent/1.2.0/ > > And the difference to the legal files (LICENSE and NOTICE) are probably due > to a lot of work we have put into making the new build comply to the Apache > rules. > The Maven migration took about 2 Months while fine-tuning the legal things > took about 4 months where Justin helped us greatly with resolving any issues. > > So, I removed the LICENSE file and here’s the revision to vote on: 23497 > > > Chris > > > Am 11.12.17, 12:50 schrieb "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com>: > > On 11 December 2017 at 11:33, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> > wrote: > > Hi Seb, > > > > starting with Edgent 1.2.0 we have switched the build system to Maven. > Therefore, the build is now generating output with the default Maven settings. > > So instead of adjusting the names for every future release, would it be > better to change the names of the existing ones? > > What names are you referring to? > > > I also did notice the old releases were not including LICENSE, README > and RELEASE_NOTES, but according to our wiki: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDGENT/Release+Manager%27s+Guide#ReleaseManager'sGuide-StagingtheReleaseCandidate > > I thought this was probably some requirement added after the last > release. Would you suggest removing the 3 text files and adjust the RC > documentation accordingly or to add the NOTICE and adjust the RC > documentation? > > README and RELEASE_NOTES are fine. > > It's only the LICENSE that is a problem (for me, at least). > > Also I just noticed that the RC [5] only has source whereas the > previous release [2] has source and binaries. > If this release is to include binaries, they should be provided for > review. > > Further, the previous release [2] has a different source LICENSE from RC1. > Is that correct? > > > > I’ll post the revision as soon as above have been addresses. > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > Am 11.12.17, 12:07 schrieb "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com>: > > > > The mail subject is wrong. > > > > On 11 December 2017 at 09:39, Christofer Dutz > <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > > > The Apache Edgent community approved a vote to release > > > Apache Edgent 1.2.0-incubating from RC1. > > > > > > Per [1] we are requesting IPMC approval to publish the > > > release bundles on the distribution site [2]. > > > > > > This vote will be open for 72 hours > > > > > > > at least > > > > > - 1.2.0-incubating-RC1 vote results / thread [3] > > > - Git hash and tag for the release > > > commit: e37ca5216e7f4d464cfcd45c9826b6d99791c974 > > > tag: edgent-1.2.0 > > > link to RC1 source in the git repository [4] > > > - links to RC1 artifacts [5] > > > > > > [ ] +1 accept > > > [ ] -1 reject (explanation required) > > > > > > Thanks for your assistance in achieving this milestone! > > > > > > [1] policy > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases > > > [2] distribution > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/edgent/ > > > [3] rc1 vote > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ad39f8cad1f7238964c515777d7b6b4792e32dc44e428dcebb91b709@%3Cdev.edgent.apache.org%3E > > > [4] rc1 src repo > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-edgent.git;a=tree;h=b9d54b562b92e2112270d79ec89ba6bd85063ae0;hb=e37ca5216e7f4d464cfcd45c9826b6d99791c974 > > > [5] rc1 artifacts > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/edgent/1.2.0-incubating/rc1/ > > > > The revision is needed to make this unique > > > > The LICENSE file is not normally published separately from the > archives. > > In any case, it must be accompanied by the NOTICE file. > > > > Also the layout is different from [2] > > It would be better to keep to the same layout, so the release can be > > published with a simple rename from dev to release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
