Re: The state of 2.1

2016-05-16 Thread Josh Elser
Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: Hi, I assume you mean Commons VFS 2.1. The second release candidate was effectively pulled because we were missing a LICENSE/NOTICE entry: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/Zif1iomxs7u25tt This should be trivial to fix, but also important to get right legally.

Re: The state of 2.1

2016-05-16 Thread sebb
On 16 May 2016 at 08:33, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > Hi, > > I assume you mean Commons VFS 2.1. > > The second release candidate was effectively pulled because we were > missing a LICENSE/NOTICE entry: Surely it has not yet been established whether an entry is needed or not? Therefore the VOTE

Re: The state of 2.1

2016-05-16 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
Hi, I assume you mean Commons VFS 2.1. The second release candidate was effectively pulled because we were missing a LICENSE/NOTICE entry: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/Zif1iomxs7u25tt This should be trivial to fix, but also important to get right legally. I assume Josh Elser (as the R

The state of 2.1

2016-05-15 Thread Dmitry Goldenberg
Hi, Could someone summarize the state of the VOTE for 2.1? Thank you.