You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2009/07/27 20:54:21 UTC
CANCELLED [VOTE] jaxb 2.1 spec jar 1.0
The scout folks are OK with concurrent votes. I've fixed the legal
files, re-staged the artifacts and will call a new vote.
thanks
david jencks
On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, 2009, at 1:13 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 27, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 25, 2009, at 12:49 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Scout is upgrading their maven build and wants to use our spec
>>>> jars, and we need to get several released for 2.2. The one scout
>>>> needs now is jaxb 2.1.
>>>>
>>>> We've run the jaxb 2.1 tck on it and it works.
>>>>
>>>> This is the first release of this spec jar from geronimo.
>>>>
>>>> I'm having a bit of trouble promoting the uploads in apache nexus
>>>> so for now I put them on people.apache.org: when I figure out how
>>>> to promote them I'll post an updated location.
>>>>
>>>> Staging site for artifacts:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging/
>>>>
>>>> Staging site for stie:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~djencks/staging-site/maven/specs/geronimo-jaxb_2.1_spec/1.0/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Voting will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>
>>>
>>> Source and signatures look good.
>>>
>>> The LICENSE and NOTICE file in the source and binary are
>>> different. The source versions contains license and notice
>>> information that is not contained in the binary version. I don't
>>> see how that can be correct. One of the pairs must be wrong. Until
>>> this is resolved, I'm -1.
>>
>> I looked at svn history. This spec came from servicemix where it
>> was written entirely by gnodet. The servicemix svn contains the
>> smaller generic LICENSE and NOTICE files. Someone added the
>> expanded ones to all our spec projects at some point.
>>
>> So my conclusion is that the plain vanilla LICENSE and NOTICE files
>> are more correct for this spec project. I'll update them in trunk.
>>
>> Now, Apache has a long and unfortunate tradition of including extra
>> crud in LICENSE and NOTICE files. Much as I don't like
>> participating in this tradition I'm not sure I think this one is
>> worth rerolling the release for.
>>
>> I'll ask the scout folks if they can run their release vote
>> concurrently with this vote -- if they can I'll re-roll this one.
>
> Thanks a bunch for digging through svn history. That makes sense.
> I'd prefer to see updated license/notice files. If only license/
> notice are being updated, I'm not sure a new, full 72-hour vote
> would be required.
>
> --kevan