Justin I've created AURORA-600 [1] and have a patch up for review for it [2].
Running through the check list and everything else looks good +1 from me for 0.5.0-RC2 -Jake Apache Aurora 0.5.0-RC1 checklist ----- 1.1 Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. - checksum hashes match - signature verified against KEYS file 2.1 Build is successful including automated tests. - Followed README, java and python tests all passed 3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct, filenames include "incubating". - DISCLAIMER is correct - RC filename: apache-aurora-0.5.0-rc1-incubating.tar.gz 3.2 Top-level LICENSE and NOTICE are correct for each distribution. - LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct except for items addressed in AURORA-600 3.3 All source files have license headers where appropriate. - Files have apache headers 3.4 The provenance of all source files is clear (ASF or software grants). - IP Clearance verified on initial import of codebase 3.5 Dependencies licenses are ok as per http://apache.org/legal/ - 3rd party source libraries licenses in use are Apache v2 and MIT 3.6 Release consists of source code only, no binaries. - no binary files found [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-600 [2]: https://reviews.apache.org/r/23931/ On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Had a quick and noticed a couple of things: > - NOTICE is incorrect - software should be developed at the ASF not by the > ASF [1] > - The license information for bootstrap is incorrect LICENSE says it's > Apache licensed, but 3.1+ which it looks like you are using is licensed > under MIT (see > 3rdparty/javascript/bower_components/bootstrap/dist/js/bootstrap.js) > > Up to you if you want to make another RC or note that these issue will be > fixed in the next release when you take the vote to general incubator list > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
