On 11/03/2008, Bob Buffone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sebb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 9:23 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Approve Apache XAP 0.5.0 Release > > On 10/03/2008, Bob Buffone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Incubator PM, > > > > The XAP team has put together a new release of the project (0.5.0) > and > > it has been approved by the xap-dev list with 8 (+1s) and 0 (others). > We > > > >It would be helpful to have a link to the vote thread. > > > http://www.g8l.us/49f > > > > > > > > are now asking the Incubator PM to approve this release so we can > > distribute it. > > > > The release candidate has been posted at: > > http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/0.5.0-incubator/ > > > > > >Which SVN tag was used for the release? > > > > > XAP_0.5.0 >
This seems to contain lots of files that are not in the archive: unittests/ JSDoc-1.9.9.2/ Also, some of the files in the archive are different from the tagged files, e.g. build-manufacturing.xml has two different versions. build.bat does not seem to be the same file at all buildUtil$py.class There seem to be a lot of class files in SVN - this is not usual. > > > >Where is the KEYS file containing the signer's public key? > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/xap/KEYS > > > > > >Is there a RAT report? > > > > > There is one, I have put it at > http://people.apache.org/~bbuffone/xap-release/0.5.0-incubator/rat_outpu > t.txt > > > > > >Normally there are separate source and binary archives. > > > > > Being that this is an Ajax toolkit, we have included all the source > files in the distribution to allow people to be able to customize the > application loading profile of their application. Users can either load > one large file upfront and make zero JavaScript requests later, or a > smaller upfront file and more JavaScript requests later. > But does the archive need to contain the build files as well? There seem to be several copies of some files, e.g. dojo.js.uncompressed.js custom_rhino.jar flash6_gateway.fla Is it necessary to include both xapcore.js and xapcore.js.gz? Similarly for the other .js/.js.gz file pairs. Should the two "Thumbs.db" files be included? They look like Windows system files. > > Please cast your votes: > > > > [ ] +1 Release is approved > > [ ] -1 Veto the release (provide specific comments) > > > > Thank you, > > Bob (Buffone) > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
