[VOTE] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

This is a  Squiggly Release Candidate 1. Please see the RELEASE_NOTES and the README.

Changes from the last version:
- Added asdocs
- Merged READMEs / added instructions on how to use Squiggly
- Removed demo and scripts as they are missing needed dictionaries
- Fixed LICENSE
- Change default config from form AdobeSpellingConfig.xml to SpellingConfig.xml

As this is the first release please check it carefully as there are likely to be some issues.

The release candidate can be found here;
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/squiggly/1.0/rc1/

Before voting please review the section,"What are the ASF requirements on approving a release?", at:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release

Please vote to approve this release:
+1 Approve the release
-1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments to why)

This vote will be open for at least 72 hours or (more likely) as long as needed.

The vote passes if there is:
- At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
- More positive votes than negative votes

People who are not in PMC or who are not an committer are also encouraged to test out the release and vote, although their votes will not be binding.

Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION thread not this VOTE thread.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [VOTE] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 1

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

Unless someone from legal-discuss responds to my last query saying we
"must" change the README, I'll vote +1 when I start my day tomorrow (in
the other thread).

-Alex

On 9/2/14 9:25 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>+1 Binding
>
>MD5 looks fine
>Valid signature found
>README looks good
>RELEASE_NOTES look good
>LICENSE looks good
>Source kit compiles fine
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>
>
>On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> +1 binding
>>
>> - artefact names good
>> - signatures and hash good
>> - NOTICE and LICENCE good
>> - README and RELEASE_NOTES fine
>> - all source files have correct header
>> - no binary files in source release
>> - can compile from source package
>> - can create example that works
>>
>> Possible minor issues:
>> Generated asdoc files don't have apache headers but we can add them in a
>> future release if we think they are a nice to have. As per rat "JavaDocs
>> are generated and so license header is optional Generated files do not
>> required license headers"
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>

Re: [VOTE] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 1

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

+1 Binding

MD5 looks fine
Valid signature found
README looks good
RELEASE_NOTES look good
LICENSE looks good
Source kit compiles fine

Thanks,
Om



On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> +1 binding
>
> - artefact names good
> - signatures and hash good
> - NOTICE and LICENCE good
> - README and RELEASE_NOTES fine
> - all source files have correct header
> - no binary files in source release
> - can compile from source package
> - can create example that works
>
> Possible minor issues:
> Generated asdoc files don't have apache headers but we can add them in a
> future release if we think they are a nice to have. As per rat "JavaDocs
> are generated and so license header is optional Generated files do not
> required license headers"
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>

Re: [VOTE] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

+1 binding

- artefact names good
- signatures and hash good
- NOTICE and LICENCE good
- README and RELEASE_NOTES fine
- all source files have correct header
- no binary files in source release
- can compile from source package
- can create example that works

Possible minor issues:
Generated asdoc files don't have apache headers but we can add them in a future release if we think they are a nice to have. As per rat "JavaDocs are generated and so license header is optional Generated files do not required license headers"

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [VOTE] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 1

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

Sorry, I did not notice this new vote thread.  Gmail merged it with the
DISCUSS thread.  I will take it for a spin.

It will be good if you changed the subject just a little bit to avoid this
in future.

Thanks,
Om


On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Some time has passed and we only have one vote to release this.
>
> Can a couple of PMC members please take a look and see if we can move
> towards releasing this or if that there are any further issues and another
> RC is required?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin

Re: [VOTE] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

Some time has passed and we only have one vote to release this.

Can a couple of PMC members please take a look and see if we can move towards releasing this or if that there are any further issues and another RC is required?

Thanks,
Justin