Hi All,
We are glad to announce that vote to release Apache ServiceComb Java-Chassis
(incubating) 1.0.0-m1 has passed with following results:
+1 binding : 3 (Willem Jiang, Justin Mclean, Jean-Baptiste Onofré)
Vote Thread :
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/1d618ca03ad9d702e674d
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE all good
- No unexpected binary files
- All source files have headers
- Can compile from source
Thanks,
Justin
---
On 31 March 2018 at 16:33, Justin Mclean wrote:
> License information goes in LICENSE not NOTICE and only copyright
> information in from relocated headers goes in NOTICE (i.e. which would be
> from a software grant) Copyright lines from 3rd party bundled software
> should not be put in NOTICE.
>
Hi,
+1 binding
Re the “NOTICE” file [1] I’m not sure it is a notice file as we know it as it's
contents are not what you would normally find in a notice file.
I checked:
- name includes incubating
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE all good
- No unexpected binary files
- All source files
Hi,
> What we've generally used it for in the past is for when we copy in outside
> source code wholesale. See for example:
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/blob/master/NOTICE.txt
Which doesn’t look correct to me but I may have the URLs wrong:
- Re ResolverUtil.java is ALv2 license but
What we've generally used it for in the past is for when we copy in outside
source code wholesale. See for example: <
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/blob/master/NOTICE.txt>
On 30 March 2018 at 21:45, Willem Jiang wrote:
> Hi Matt，
>
> I checked the vertx NOTICE.md[1] was added since 3.
Hi Matt，
I checked the vertx NOTICE.md[1] was added since 3.5.1[2], but we are using
vertx 3.5.0[3].
BTW
For the bundled Apache Licensed dependency, I checked the instruction[4],
but it doesn't mention what should be put into the top-level NOTICE file.
we will add a reference of it vertx NOTICE.
* Rat check ok (checked exceptions as well)
* Build and tests ok
* Signatures ok
Question regarding the NOTICE file: shouldn't the vertx classes that are
bundled be noted here?
On 29 March 2018 at 22:59, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Checked:
> - build
> - signatures and header
+1 (binding)
Checked:
- build
- signatures and headers
- DISCLAIMER/LICENSE/NOTICE are present
NB: NOTICE looks very light to me. I would double check if it's complete and
clean for the next release.
Regards
JB
On 03/29/2018 04:23 PM, Mohammad Asif Siddiqui wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is a c
+1 (Binding)
Checked the release tag, signed key.
Build the binary from source.
Verify the nexus release by running the company project[1]
Checked the src kit by grepping the copyright license header, it looks
good.
[1]https://github.com/ServiceComb/ServiceComb-Company-WorkShop
Willem Jiang
Bl
Minor Correction:
Voting will start now ( Thursday, 30th March, 2018) and will remain open for
next 72 hours, we request all IPMC members to give their vote.
On 2018/03/29 14:23:50, Mohammad Asif Siddiqui wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is a call for vote to release Apache ServiceComb J
Hi All,
This is a call for vote to release Apache ServiceComb Java-Chassis (Incubating)
version 1.0.0-m1
Apache ServiceComb (Incubating) Community has voted and approved the release.
Vote Thread :
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3614f836e1905fc5d80e65217cf0fb294bd075451cfa311b
Hi All,
Since there are some issues in this release so we are closing off this vote
thread.
Thanks All for your support.
Regards
Asif
On 2018/03/23 09:16:37, Mohammad Asif Siddiqui wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is a call for vote to release Apache ServiceComb Java-Chassis
-1 (binding) due to source under CC-BY license which is Cat B. It can be used
but not included in source release.
Regards
JB
On 03/23/2018 10:16 AM, Mohammad Asif Siddiqui wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is a call for vote to release Apache ServiceComb Java-Chassis
> (Incubating) version 1.0.0-m
Hi Justin,
Thanks for pointing that out. I just filled a JIRA[1] for it and submit
quick fix for it.
[1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SCB-427
Willem Jiang
Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
http://jnn.iteye.com (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: 姜宁willem
On
I need to get more familiar with that license list!
Changing to -1 to have licensing fixed
On 23 March 2018 at 19:22, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry but it’s -1 binding from me as the source release contains some
> CC-BY licensed content in plain text. [1][2] CC-BY is considered Category
Hi,
Sorry but it’s -1 binding from me as the source release contains some CC-BY
licensed content in plain text. [1][2] CC-BY is considered Category B [3] and
can’t be included in a source release. These files also incorrectly IMO have
ASF headers.
Everything else is good. I checked:
- name inc
+1
* Signatures ok
* Build and test ok
* Rat check has errors regarding files in
java-chassis-distribution/src/release/licenses/, though adding that to the
excludes in the root pom.xml fixes those errors.
On 23 March 2018 at 04:16, Mohammad Asif Siddiqui
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This is a call for
Hi All,
This is a call for vote to release Apache ServiceComb Java-Chassis (Incubating)
version 1.0.0-m1
Apache ServiceComb (Incubating) Community has voted and approved the release.
Vote Thread :
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b778a8787435b963c0743c518c3bc0b4c419a4010edc369
19 matches
Mail list logo
