Oops. I accidentally sent the following to my own email address,
rather than general@
--kevan
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: December 18, 2007 1:01:08 PM EST
To: Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Approve release Apach
We had two additional votes...
Now we have 5 binding +1s, one 0s and one -1s.
Votes were cast by:
Ant Elder (+1)
Matthieu Riou (+1)
Jean Anderson (+1)
Martijn Dashorst (+1)
Paul Fremantle (+1)
Bertrand Delacretaz(+0)
Kevan Millar (-1)
Thanks again for your support!
-- Michael Baessler
Paul
I know I'm late but I'd like to add a +1 to the vote.
Paul
On Dec 19, 2007 10:02 AM, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2007 10:52 AM, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> ...We have 4 binding +1s, no 0s and 1 -1s
> >>
> >
>
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 10:52 AM, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...We have 4 binding +1s, no 0s and 1 -1s
I did vote +0 earlier in this thread. Just for the record, as it
doesn'n make much of a difference other than express support ;-)
Sorry I m
On Dec 19, 2007 10:52 AM, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...We have 4 binding +1s, no 0s and 1 -1s
I did vote +0 earlier in this thread. Just for the record, as it
doesn'n make much of a difference other than express support ;-)
-Bertrand
--
This vote has been open for more than a 72 hours.
We have 4 binding +1s, no 0s and 1 -1s.
Votes were cast by:
Ant Elder (+1)
Matthieu Riou (+1)
Jean Anderson (+1)
Martijn Dashorst (+1)
Kevan Millar (-1)
We will modify the checksum representation for MD5 and SHA1 so that tools can
easier
On 18/12/2007, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 18/12/2007, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Leo Simons wrote:
> >>> On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 10:37 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...S
sebb wrote:
> On 18/12/2007, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>> On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 10:37 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...So it is a new requirement and I don't think we should be making
>>
On 18/12/2007, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> >> On Dec 18, 2007 10:37 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> ...So it is a new requirement and I don't think we should be making
> >>> up policy
>
On Dec 18, 2007 3:11 PM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the record, +1 for releasing from me.
+0 from me for now: from discussions here I feel like everything's
fine, but lack the time to check the release files myself ATM.
-Bertrand
---
For the record, +1 for releasing from me.
Martijn
On Dec 18, 2007 1:16 PM, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 2007 10:37 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> ...So it is a new requirement and I don't think we sh
Leo Simons wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 10:37 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...So it is a new requirement and I don't think we should be making
up policy
during a release vote
+1, that's even part of the policy! It is just *so* an
On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 10:37 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...So it is a new requirement and I don't think we should be
making up policy
during a release vote
+1, that's even part of the policy! It is just *so* annoying that
this
On Dec 18, 2007 10:37 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...There clearly is not yet consensus
> among the IPMC on this though or if that tag MUST have LICENSE and NOTICE
> files in the the top-level directory
> ...So it is a new requirement and I don't think we should be making up pol
Kevan
> Your interpretation works if your subversion repository is not a
> "distribution". IMO, it is and should contain appropriate license/
> notice/disclaimer.
>
> --kevan
Kevan
The SVN tag is only a distribution if it is published as that. The fact that
SVN is available to anyone via HTTP
On Dec 17, 2007 5:44 PM, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevan Miller wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
> >
> >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >>> Marshall Schor wrote:
> We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top
> directory
> of t
On Dec 17, 2007 10:17 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regardless of the outcome, I think that there are problems with
> generating the NOTICE and LICENSE files automatically. Unless the
> project is pure ASF, there are additional items that may need to be
> added to the N & L files. In any
sebb wrote:
> On 17/12/2007, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 17, 2007 5:49 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Your interpretation works if your subversion repository is not a
>>> "distribution". IMO, it is and should contain appropriate license/
>>> n
On 17/12/2007, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007 5:49 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Your interpretation works if your subversion repository is not a
> > "distribution". IMO, it is and should contain appropriate license/
> > notice/disclaimer.
> >
I
On Dec 17, 2007 5:49 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Your interpretation works if your subversion repository is not a
> "distribution". IMO, it is and should contain appropriate license/
> notice/disclaimer.
>
I don't agree with this standpoint as for instance the LICENSE and
DISCL
On 17/12/2007, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevan Miller wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
> >
> >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >>> Marshall Schor wrote:
> We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top directory
> of the source (an
Though I don't necessarily agree with Kevan, the best projects to look at
are recently graduated projects as those have been scrutinized by the IPMC,
and have been held against the same (though possibly changing) standards as
you.
For instance you could take a look at Wicket, OpenJPA, ServiceMix, O
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
>
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> Marshall Schor wrote:
We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top directory
of the source (and binary) distribution(s), but didn't realize this
also
ne
On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top
directory
of the source (and binary) distribution(s), but didn't realize
this also
needs to be in the top level of the SVN tag, bec
sebb wrote:
[...]
> Maven can generate the MD5 and SHA1 checksums itself; no need for a
> separate tool.
>
> I'm not familiar with Maven, so I don't know the commands off-hand,
> but I can probably find them.
Maybe it can, but I was unable to figure out how.
We need to create checksums for the a
On 17/12/2007, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > [Eventually found the KEYS file in SVN, but it might be helpful to
> > provide a pointer in the vote mails]
>
> Good point, will do next time.
>
> [...]
> >
> > There are some problems with the MD5 and SHA1 files.
> >
> > For e
On 17/12/2007, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > On 15/12/2007, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> sebb wrote:
> >>> [Eventually found the KEYS file in SVN, but it might be helpful to
> >>> provide a pointer in the vote mails]
> >>>
> >>>
> >> yeah, I went to th
On Dec 17, 2007 11:08 AM, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > ...Automated reproducible builds (including building distribution
> > archives) are IMHO a must in our way of working.
>
> Absolutely. Our build is completely automated and reproducible,
> includin
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007 10:09 AM, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> Marshall Schor wrote:
We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top directory
of the source (and binary) distribution(s), but didn't realize this
On Dec 17, 2007 10:09 AM, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > Marshall Schor wrote:
> >> We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top directory
> >> of the source (and binary) distribution(s), but didn't realize this also
> >> needs to be in the
sebb wrote:
> [Eventually found the KEYS file in SVN, but it might be helpful to
> provide a pointer in the vote mails]
Good point, will do next time.
[...]
>
> There are some problems with the MD5 and SHA1 files.
>
> For example, uimaj-2.2.1-incubating-bin.tar.bz2.md5:
>
>
>
sebb wrote:
> On 15/12/2007, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>> [Eventually found the KEYS file in SVN, but it might be helpful to
>>> provide a pointer in the vote mails]
>>>
>>>
>> yeah, I went to their website and followed the link from there.
>
> So did I.
>
>>> Th
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Marshall Schor wrote:
>> We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top directory
>> of the source (and binary) distribution(s), but didn't realize this also
>> needs to be in the top level of the SVN tag, because we didn't know that
>> was considered par
On Dec 15, 2007 9:21 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 1:43 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> > [Eventually found the KEYS file in SVN, but it might be helpful to
> > provide a pointer in the vote mails]
> >
> > The NOTICE file in uimaj-2.2.1-incubating-bin.zip refers to the
>
sebb wrote:
On 15/12/2007, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
The NOTICE file in uimaj-2.2.1-incubating-bin.zip refers to the
contributions from IBM:
"Software Grant License Agreement", informally known as the
"IBM UIMA License Agreement".
however, that license i
Marshall Schor wrote:
We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top directory
of the source (and binary) distribution(s), but didn't realize this also
needs to be in the top level of the SVN tag, because we didn't know that
was considered part of the "distribution".
Can you please
We've put the LICENSE, NOTICES, and DISCLAIMERs into the top directory
of the source (and binary) distribution(s), but didn't realize this also
needs to be in the top level of the SVN tag, because we didn't know that
was considered part of the "distribution".
Can you please confirm this is the cas
resend from an email that won't need moderation (sorry for the dup).
sebb wrote:
> On 15/12/2007, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>>> The NOTICE file in uimaj-2.2.1-incubating-bin.zip refers to the
>>> contributions from IBM:
>>>
>>> "Software Grant License Agre
On 15/12/2007, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> > [Eventually found the KEYS file in SVN, but it might be helpful to
> > provide a pointer in the vote mails]
> >
> >
> yeah, I went to their website and followed the link from there.
So did I.
> > The NOTICE file in uimaj
sebb wrote:
[Eventually found the KEYS file in SVN, but it might be helpful to
provide a pointer in the vote mails]
yeah, I went to their website and followed the link from there.
The NOTICE file in uimaj-2.2.1-incubating-bin.zip refers to the
contributions from IBM:
"Software Grant Licens
On Dec 15, 2007, at 1:43 PM, sebb wrote:
[Eventually found the KEYS file in SVN, but it might be helpful to
provide a pointer in the vote mails]
The NOTICE file in uimaj-2.2.1-incubating-bin.zip refers to the
contributions from IBM:
"Software Grant License Agreement", informally known as the
[Eventually found the KEYS file in SVN, but it might be helpful to
provide a pointer in the vote mails]
The NOTICE file in uimaj-2.2.1-incubating-bin.zip refers to the
contributions from IBM:
"Software Grant License Agreement", informally known as the
"IBM UIMA License Agreement".
however, that
I reviewed the rat reports, checked the asc signatures, did a cursory
review of DISCLAIMER, NOTICE, and LICENSE files in a couple of the src
and bin files, and it all looks good to me.
+1
btw, the way you provide the rat reports up front is *very* helpful.
-jean
Michael Baessler wrote:
The
+1
I looked at the rat reports and poked around the src and binaries. All
looked good to me.
--kevan
On Dec 13, 2007, at 6:50 AM, Michael Baessler wrote:
The Apache UIMA committers ask the Apache Incubator PMC for
permission to publish a new bug fix release of Apache UIMA. This
release
Looks good to me as well.
[X] +1 Accept to release Apache UIMA 2.2.1
Matthieu
On Dec 13, 2007 5:53 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007 11:50 AM, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > The Apache UIMA committers ask the Apache Incubator PMC for
> > permission
On Dec 13, 2007 11:50 AM, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Apache UIMA committers ask the Apache Incubator PMC for
> permission to publish a new bug fix release of Apache UIMA.
> This release contains bug fixes of the Apache UIMA 2.2.0 release published
> in
> August 2007. For det
The Apache UIMA committers ask the Apache Incubator PMC for
permission to publish a new bug fix release of Apache UIMA.
This release contains bug fixes of the Apache UIMA 2.2.0 release published in
August 2007. For details about the fixes, please have a look at the
release notes.
We had a vot
47 matches
Mail list logo
