On 17/01/2010, henrib <hen...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thanks for the thorough review. > > > sebb-2-2 wrote: > > > > ... > > > Hashes and sigs are OK, but .asc.md5 and .asc.sha1 files are useless > > and should be deleted before release. Not a blocker. > > > > > Rm-ed. > > > > sebb-2-2 wrote: > > > > The RELEASE-NOTES.txt file has no information in the "Bugs fixed" section. > > Ideally the major bug fixes should be listed here, and for a full list > > it could point to the report on the web-site. > > > > > Ok; it seems redundant with > http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/jexl/2.0/RC5/site/changes-report.html > but will add them there too. >
There's currently an empty section, which just looks wrong. It should at least point to the changes-report. > > sebb-2-2 wrote: > > > > There's no sign of the jexl2-compat library in the source or binary > > archives. > > Is that intentional? > > > > > It is intentional as I dont really know if it has any real actual value; we > decided jexl 2.0 had to be in its own package (oac.jexl2) since there were > so many changes in the core/internal APIs (wrt jexl 1.x). This compat > library is merely a compatibility (and extensibility) exercise that can only > be used in strictly controlled environments (wrt dependencies & deployment). > OK. > > sebb-2-2 wrote: > > > > ... > > > There are no build instructions. These could be added to the release > > notes, or we could create a BUILDING.txt file. > > > ... > > > > Actually, some are here: > http://people.apache.org/builds/commons/jexl/2.0/RC5/site/building.html . > But like release-notes.txt and changes.xml, the same info can be replicated > in textual form in that file. > Let me know. > It's useful to have at least minimal build instructions in the source archive, even if there are also ones on the web. Unfortunately, the instructions in the building.html file don't work, as neither 'jar' nor 'javadoc' are valid M2 targets. Probably should use 'package' or 'install' instead of 'jar'? Not sure offhand about 'javadoc'. > > sebb-2-2 wrote: > > > > Most of the above are fairly minor problems, though I'm concerned > > about the date 2009 - I think it's important the dates are correct. > > > > So my vote is currently: > > > > +0 > > > > I'll see how others feel. > > > > > I understand that an RC6 with those corrected date changes, updated > RELEASE-NOTES.txt (and may be BUILDING.txt) is required for your +1 vote. > Will wait for others to comment in case more changes are needed. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Jexl-2-0-tp1016004p1016039.html > > Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
