Hi Justin,
Thanks for your vote. Some comments inline.
Jonas
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 19:04:22 +1100
Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
Hi,
I’m +1 (binding) on releasing the source package, but -1 on the
binary. Assuming you get enough votes you could IMO just release the
source artefact.
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes good
- LICENSE and NOTICE fine
- DISCLAIMER exists
- no unexpected binary files
- can compile from source
Two very minor things:
- You might want to consider signing the release with an Apache
email address.
It is signed with an Apache email address:
$ gpg --verify apache-crail-1.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.asc
gpg: assuming signed data in `apache-crail-1.1-incubating-src.tar.gz'
gpg: Signature made Fri 26 Oct 2018 12:50:58 PM CEST using RSA key ID
AA557B11
gpg: Good signature from "Jonas Pfefferle <peppe...@apache.org>"
- What is contained in CREDITS is ally in NOTICE (in a slightly
different form).
There was some discussion on the last release the reason we have the CREDITS
file is to
respect IBM's copyright.
- Please include build instructions in the released software and not
a link to them.
Ok. I'll add a small paragraph in the README
- At some point the documentation [1] should move to Apache
infrastructure
For the binary the LICENSE, NOTICE and DISCLAIMER is missing and the
LICENSE and NOTICE are also missing from META-INF in the jars. See
the release policy on this. [2]
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://incubator-crail.readthedocs.org
2.
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#distribute-other-artifacts
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
