You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Guillaume Nodet <gu...@worldonline.fr> on 2006/06/25 20:16:03 UTC
[VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix
In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
ServiceMix community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
3.0-M2.
We would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to
perform the release.
Vote thread:
http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--ServiceMix-3.0-M2-incubating-%28Bis%29-t1833081.html
Vote result:
7 +1s and no 0/-1
Release tarball:
http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/org/apache/servicemix/apache-servicemix/3.0-M2-incubating/
Keys file is available at:
http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/org/apache/servicemix/KEYS
Releases section of the Incubation Policy:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Don't +1 lightly
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> So here is a suggestion. Each incubator project could have nominated
> two or three PMC members whose job is to pay attention to the project.
> As opposed to a mentor - who is there to actively help, these PMC
> members would be there to pay enough attention to have an input on
> releases, status and graduation. They wouldn't need to be involved in
> the technical aspects of the project. The focus would be on
> understanding whether the project got the Apache way - votes,
> releases, community. To use a trendy word - governance.
I'm not quite certain how you separate these aspects?
I've personally only voted on releases that I have time to unpack, grep for
typical language that reflects an ASF incubating project as opposed to it's
original origins, etc etc. If I can't do that, I can't +1 the release.
I think it does much more damage if release after release is blindly +1'ed,
and the project gets a brick wall upon it's graduate-from-incubator vote for
entirely reasonable issues that weren't observed by the reviewers before.
So I'd caution against designated release managers.
One fun thing might be to add pending packages for review in the incubator's
DOAP file, so more members could watch release activity via rss without being
lost in the general drone of general@ discussion. A red letter day rss feed.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix)
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/5/06, Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
I take your point about Yet Another Role. On the other hand it takes 3
> binding +1s to do a release, and projects typically have only one
> mentor. It seems to me that a few people like you Robert take on a
> large part of the burden of doing detailed reviews, so I was simply
> trying to figure out a way of spreading that load.
i agree that we should try spread the load. i just think it better reuse the
existing name whilst doing so (mentor). the well understood chair role could
be extended to ppmc's and be used to describe the active part of the
current mentor role.
- robert
Re: Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix)
Posted by Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com>.
A couple of points in relation to the discussion.
Firstly I'd like to make it clear I do not condone any "blind +1"ing.
I don't think anyone on this list does. In fact exactly the opposite.
The aim of this discussion was to come up with ways to ensure that
projects have people willing to do the hard work to validate their
releases, graduation etc.
I take your point about Yet Another Role. On the other hand it takes 3
binding +1s to do a release, and projects typically have only one
mentor. It seems to me that a few people like you Robert take on a
large part of the burden of doing detailed reviews, so I was simply
trying to figure out a way of spreading that load.
Paul
On 7/5/06, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/5/06, Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually this raises an interesting discussion about the Incubator PMC.
> >
> > There is kind of a tricky role for Incubator PMC members. Because most
> > of us have no knowledge or affiliation with any given one of the tens
> > of incubator projects, we find it hard to have any say, especially
> > when it comes to a vote (e.g. release, graduation).
> >
> > A few hardy souls (you know who you are - and thanks!!) get involved
> > in doing real reviews of releases or projects that they haven't got a
> > direct connection too, but on the whole its pretty quiet when it comes
> > to a vote.
> >
> > On the other hand, if its only the PMC members associated with a given
> > project who vote, then perhaps there isn't enough oversight and
> > unbiased critical validation going on.
> >
> > So here is a suggestion. Each incubator project could have nominated
> > two or three PMC members whose job is to pay attention to the project.
> > As opposed to a mentor - who is there to actively help, these PMC
> > members would be there to pay enough attention to have an input on
> > releases, status and graduation. They wouldn't need to be involved in
> > the technical aspects of the project. The focus would be on
> > understanding whether the project got the Apache way - votes,
> > releases, community. To use a trendy word - governance.
>
>
> the only downside to this plan would be to create YAR (yet another role). we
> already have sponsor, champion and mentor. it's hard enough to explain these
> without adding another one to the list. so, i'd probably prefer to reuse the
> mentor role.
>
> IMHO a successful incubation requires at least one mentor to adopt an active
> role.
>
> this is akin to the role that a chair plays in a standard project. if a
> distinction is needed between mentors then perhaps the initial ppmc
> (consisting only of mentors) could elect a ppmc chair who would adopt this
> more active mode. this would also allow (in time as the ppmc matures towards
> the end of the incubation) the chair to stand down to be replaced by a
> non-mentor and adopt a more passive role.
>
> - robert
>
>
--
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix)
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/5/06, Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually this raises an interesting discussion about the Incubator PMC.
>
> There is kind of a tricky role for Incubator PMC members. Because most
> of us have no knowledge or affiliation with any given one of the tens
> of incubator projects, we find it hard to have any say, especially
> when it comes to a vote (e.g. release, graduation).
>
> A few hardy souls (you know who you are - and thanks!!) get involved
> in doing real reviews of releases or projects that they haven't got a
> direct connection too, but on the whole its pretty quiet when it comes
> to a vote.
>
> On the other hand, if its only the PMC members associated with a given
> project who vote, then perhaps there isn't enough oversight and
> unbiased critical validation going on.
>
> So here is a suggestion. Each incubator project could have nominated
> two or three PMC members whose job is to pay attention to the project.
> As opposed to a mentor - who is there to actively help, these PMC
> members would be there to pay enough attention to have an input on
> releases, status and graduation. They wouldn't need to be involved in
> the technical aspects of the project. The focus would be on
> understanding whether the project got the Apache way - votes,
> releases, community. To use a trendy word - governance.
the only downside to this plan would be to create YAR (yet another role). we
already have sponsor, champion and mentor. it's hard enough to explain these
without adding another one to the list. so, i'd probably prefer to reuse the
mentor role.
IMHO a successful incubation requires at least one mentor to adopt an active
role.
this is akin to the role that a chair plays in a standard project. if a
distinction is needed between mentors then perhaps the initial ppmc
(consisting only of mentors) could elect a ppmc chair who would adopt this
more active mode. this would also allow (in time as the ppmc matures towards
the end of the incubation) the chair to stand down to be replaced by a
non-mentor and adopt a more passive role.
- robert
Re: Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix)
Posted by Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com>.
Actually this raises an interesting discussion about the Incubator PMC.
There is kind of a tricky role for Incubator PMC members. Because most
of us have no knowledge or affiliation with any given one of the tens
of incubator projects, we find it hard to have any say, especially
when it comes to a vote (e.g. release, graduation).
A few hardy souls (you know who you are - and thanks!!) get involved
in doing real reviews of releases or projects that they haven't got a
direct connection too, but on the whole its pretty quiet when it comes
to a vote.
On the other hand, if its only the PMC members associated with a given
project who vote, then perhaps there isn't enough oversight and
unbiased critical validation going on.
So here is a suggestion. Each incubator project could have nominated
two or three PMC members whose job is to pay attention to the project.
As opposed to a mentor - who is there to actively help, these PMC
members would be there to pay enough attention to have an input on
releases, status and graduation. They wouldn't need to be involved in
the technical aspects of the project. The focus would be on
understanding whether the project got the Apache way - votes,
releases, community. To use a trendy word - governance.
Paul
On 7/4/06, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shesh...what makes you think it was done lightly? As the rest of my post
> indicated I'd taken the time to downloaded and try out their release, even
> pointed out a problem in the readme files I'd found. And I'd looked at
> things like the notice and license files that have cased problems in other
> incubating project releases i've participated in to see how servicemix
> compared. All that takes time and I spent the time on it to say thanks for
> them spending similar time on the releases I've done.
>
> ...ant
>
> On 7/4/06, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 07:08:48PM +0100, ant elder wrote:
> > > A (non-binding) +1 from me to say thanks for the Tuscany votes.
> >
> > Huh what? Exactly what semantics attach to a "+1" is always a muddy
> > discussion, but IMNSHO they really ought not be "thanks for something
> > unrelated". Its utterly confusing.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > LSD
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
--
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
Shesh...what makes you think it was done lightly? As the rest of my post
indicated I'd taken the time to downloaded and try out their release, even
pointed out a problem in the readme files I'd found. And I'd looked at
things like the notice and license files that have cased problems in other
incubating project releases i've participated in to see how servicemix
compared. All that takes time and I spent the time on it to say thanks for
them spending similar time on the releases I've done.
...ant
On 7/4/06, Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 07:08:48PM +0100, ant elder wrote:
> > A (non-binding) +1 from me to say thanks for the Tuscany votes.
>
> Huh what? Exactly what semantics attach to a "+1" is always a muddy
> discussion, but IMNSHO they really ought not be "thanks for something
> unrelated". Its utterly confusing.
>
> Thanks!
>
> LSD
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Don't +1 lightly (was: Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix)
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 07:08:48PM +0100, ant elder wrote:
> A (non-binding) +1 from me to say thanks for the Tuscany votes.
Huh what? Exactly what semantics attach to a "+1" is always a muddy
discussion, but IMNSHO they really ought not be "thanks for something
unrelated". Its utterly confusing.
Thanks!
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
A (non-binding) +1 from me to say thanks for the Tuscany votes.
FYI, the README.txt files in each example in the examples folder have
incorrect URLs to the website example pages. Eg,
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/Basic should be
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/basic.html. Other than that they
seemed to run just fine.
...ant
PS. Note also theres a Synapse vote still running:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115129732300001&r=1&w=2
:-)
On 6/28/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On 6/26/06, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On 25 Jun 06, at 8:16 PM 25 Jun 06, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> >
> > > In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
> > > ServiceMix community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
> > > 3.0-M2.
> > >
> > > We would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to
> > > perform the release.
> > >
> > > Vote thread:
> > > http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--ServiceMix-3.0-M2-incubating-%28Bis%29-
> > > t1833081.html
> > >
> > > Vote result:
> > > 7 +1s and no 0/-1
> > >
> > > Release tarball:
> > > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/
> > > org/apache/servicemix/apache-servicemix/3.0-M2-incubating/
> > >
> > > Keys file is available at:
> > > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/
> > > org/apache/servicemix/KEYS
> > >
> > > Releases section of the Incubation Policy:
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Guillaume Nodet
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Jason van Zyl
> > jason@maven.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 6/26/06, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> On 25 Jun 06, at 8:16 PM 25 Jun 06, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
> > In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
> > ServiceMix community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
> > 3.0-M2.
> >
> > We would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to
> > perform the release.
> >
> > Vote thread:
> > http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--ServiceMix-3.0-M2-incubating-%28Bis%29-
> > t1833081.html
> >
> > Vote result:
> > 7 +1s and no 0/-1
> >
> > Release tarball:
> > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/
> > org/apache/servicemix/apache-servicemix/3.0-M2-incubating/
> >
> > Keys file is available at:
> > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/
> > org/apache/servicemix/KEYS
> >
> > Releases section of the Incubation Policy:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Guillaume Nodet
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> Jason van Zyl
> jason@maven.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
+1
On 25 Jun 06, at 8:16 PM 25 Jun 06, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
> ServiceMix community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
> 3.0-M2.
>
> We would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to
> perform the release.
>
> Vote thread:
> http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--ServiceMix-3.0-M2-incubating-%28Bis%29-
> t1833081.html
>
> Vote result:
> 7 +1s and no 0/-1
>
> Release tarball:
> http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/
> org/apache/servicemix/apache-servicemix/3.0-M2-incubating/
>
> Keys file is available at:
> http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/
> org/apache/servicemix/KEYS
>
> Releases section of the Incubation Policy:
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 7/2/06, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/1/06, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/29/06, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 looks ok to me
> > >
> > > but note:
> > >
> > > 1 the various licenses for the jars shipped are present and rationally
> > > organized (good) but are not referenced from the master LICENSE file.
> > check
> > > with the legal policy documentation once (it is posted)
> >
> > When
>
>
> cliff's happy that they're right :-)
>
> (and where) will these docs be posted?
>
>
> probably in a subdirectory of www.apache.org
>
> > 2 there are xml files shipped without copyright notices. it's recommended
> > > that these should contain the boiler plate license
> >
> > What files specifically?
>
>
> i didn't make a comprehensive list: it's not worth going through until the
> legal policy documentation is posted by cliff since the guidelines may
> change.
>
> if i find any which need headers when i go through the next release, i'll
> post a patch to JIRA.
Thank you for the follow-up, Robert, and thank you for the offer of
noting any broken windows WRT the license headers. Your input is much
appreciated.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/1/06, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/29/06, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 looks ok to me
> >
> > but note:
> >
> > 1 the various licenses for the jars shipped are present and rationally
> > organized (good) but are not referenced from the master LICENSE file.
> check
> > with the legal policy documentation once (it is posted)
>
> When
cliff's happy that they're right :-)
(and where) will these docs be posted?
probably in a subdirectory of www.apache.org
> 2 there are xml files shipped without copyright notices. it's recommended
> > that these should contain the boiler plate license
>
> What files specifically?
i didn't make a comprehensive list: it's not worth going through until the
legal policy documentation is posted by cliff since the guidelines may
change.
if i find any which need headers when i go through the next release, i'll
post a patch to JIRA.
- robert
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 6/29/06, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 looks ok to me
>
> but note:
>
> 1 the various licenses for the jars shipped are present and rationally
> organized (good) but are not referenced from the master LICENSE file. check
> with the legal policy documentation once (it is posted)
When (and where) will these docs be posted?
> 2 there are xml files shipped without copyright notices. it's recommended
> that these should contain the boiler plate license
What files specifically?
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 from me.
On 6/29/06, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/06, Guillaume Nodet <gu...@worldonline.fr> wrote:
> >
> > In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
> > ServiceMix community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
> > 3.0-M2.
> >
> > We would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to
> > perform the release.
> >
> > Vote thread:
> >
> > http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--ServiceMix-3.0-M2-incubating-%28Bis%29-t1833081.html
> >
> > Vote result:
> > 7 +1s and no 0/-1
> >
> > Release tarball:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/org/apache/servicemix/apache-servicemix/3.0-M2-incubating/
> >
> > Keys file is available at:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/org/apache/servicemix/KEYS
> >
> > Releases section of the Incubation Policy:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
>
>
> +1 looks ok to me
>
> but note:
>
> 1 the various licenses for the jars shipped are present and rationally
> organized (good) but are not referenced from the master LICENSE file. check
> with the legal policy documentation once (it is posted)
> 2 there are xml files shipped without copyright notices. it's recommended
> that these should contain the boiler plate license
>
> - robert
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://people.apache.org/~dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve the 3.0-M2 release of ServiceMix
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 6/25/06, Guillaume Nodet <gu...@worldonline.fr> wrote:
>
> In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see below) the
> ServiceMix community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
> 3.0-M2.
>
> We would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to
> perform the release.
>
> Vote thread:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--ServiceMix-3.0-M2-incubating-%28Bis%29-t1833081.html
>
> Vote result:
> 7 +1s and no 0/-1
>
> Release tarball:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/org/apache/servicemix/apache-servicemix/3.0-M2-incubating/
>
> Keys file is available at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.0-M2-incubating/m2/org/apache/servicemix/KEYS
>
> Releases section of the Incubation Policy:
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
+1 looks ok to me
but note:
1 the various licenses for the jars shipped are present and rationally
organized (good) but are not referenced from the master LICENSE file. check
with the legal policy documentation once (it is posted)
2 there are xml files shipped without copyright notices. it's recommended
that these should contain the boiler plate license
- robert