-1(binding) apologies for the late vote.
I checked: - incubating in name - signatures and hashes are fine - disclaimer exists - file has correct ASF headers if necessary The source package looks good, but the binary package has the following issues: 1. The Jakarta RESTful Web Services API (jakarta.ws.rs:jakarta.ws.rs-api) is licensed under the EPL. As such, there is no requirement to add additional statements to the NOTICE file for this dependency. As far as I know, only the Apache License 2.0 (ALv2) imposes explicit requirements for modifying the NOTICE file. 2.The binary package includes components such as Netty, but these are not reflected in the NOTICE file. 3. For non-standard Apache License 2.0 license texts, we are also required to explicitly include them(binary package). On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 9:04 PM Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> wrote: > Carrying over my +1 (binding) from the dev-list. > > Chris > > Von: Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > Datum: Mittwoch, 24. Dezember 2025 um 08:38 > An: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache BifroMQ 4.0.0-incubating RC2 > > +1 (binding) > > I checked: > - source distribution > -- incubating is in the name/version > -- checksum/signature are good > -- DISCLAIMER is present > -- LICENSE/NOTICE are good > -- ASF header present in expected files > -- No binary/compiled file found > -- I was able to compile from the source with ./mvnw clean install > -DskipTests (I had to skip tests on the first run to avoid artifact > resolution issue in the tests). > - binary distribution > -- incubating is in the name/version > -- checksum/signature are good > -- DISCLAIMER is present > -- LICENSE/NOTICE are good (including content in the licenses folder). NB: > personally, for BSD and MIT licenses, I prefer to have the actual > dependency license more than the "generic" one as it contains the > copyright. For instance, I would prefer licenses/pcollections.license > (specific) instead of licenses/mit.txt (generic). But that's a detail :) > > Regards > JB > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 4:38 AM Yonny Hao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > The Apache BifroMQ community has voted on releasing Apache BifroMQ > > 4.0.0-incubating RC2. We would now like to call for a vote from the > > Incubator PMC to release this version. > > > > *Community vote thread*: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/l7ngk38zf5kmt7jvwqjx5kpw9hqxmqqz > > > > *Vote result thread*: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/wh063yoc7d72kvxh52chgzl8dmxfkjhw > > > > *The Release candidate*: > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/bifromq/4.0.0-incubating-RC2/ > > > > *Git tag and commit*: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/bifromq/commit/878c0fc70d8346fd22fa1b52ec960728ebcec5bc > > (tag: v4.0.0-incubating-RC2, hash:878c0fc) > > > > *Release notes*: > > https://github.com/apache/bifromq/releases/tag/v4.0.0-incubating-RC2 > > > > *PGP KEYS*: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/bifromq/KEYS > (signer: > > [email protected]) > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > - [ ] +1 approve > > - [ ] +0 no opinion > > - [ ] -1 do not approve (please state your reasons) > > > > Additional information about Apache BifroMQ is available at: > > https://bifromq.apache.org/ > > > > Thanks, > > – > > Yonny (Yu) Hao > > on behalf of the Apache BifroMQ community > > > -- Best wishes！ CalvinKirs
