On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 1:31 PM Calvin Kirs <[email protected]> wrote:
> -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). > FYI https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html > > 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 > -- Best wishes！ CalvinKirs
