[CANCEL][VOTE] Release Commons Pool 1.6-RC1

2011-12-31 Thread Gary Gregory
Cancelled for bad release notes and extra SNAPSHOT jars in bin distro. Gary On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > Hello Gary, > > thanks for the hard work! > > While testing I saw there hashed asc files online, like: > commons-pool-1.6-sources.jar.asc.md5 > To my knowledg

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Pool 1.6-RC1

2011-12-31 Thread Gary Gregory
Thank you for the review Christian, On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 6:22 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > Hello Gary, > > thanks for the hard work! > > While testing I saw there hashed asc files online, like: > commons-pool-1.6-sources.jar.asc.md5 > To my knowledge they are not necessary and can be remov

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Pool 1.6-RC1

2011-12-31 Thread Gary Gregory
Thank for the inspection Oliver. On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Oliver Heger wrote: > Build works fine with Java 1.5 on Windows 7. Site looks good. However, I > found some problems with the distributions: > > - The release notes are for the 1.5.7 version. > - The binary distribution contains

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Pool 1.6-RC1

2011-12-31 Thread Oliver Heger
Build works fine with Java 1.5 on Windows 7. Site looks good. However, I found some problems with the distributions: - The release notes are for the 1.5.7 version. - The binary distribution contains duplicate jars labeled as 1.6-SNAPSHOT. I think, this is sufficient for a -1. Oliver Am 30.12.2

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Pool 1.6-RC1

2011-12-31 Thread Christian Grobmeier
Hello Gary, thanks for the hard work! While testing I saw there hashed asc files online, like: commons-pool-1.6-sources.jar.asc.md5 To my knowledge they are not necessary and can be removed from Nexus (just chose and remove). Notice does include copyright until 2011, but tomorrow is 2012 ;-) Non

Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Pool 1.6-RC1

2011-12-30 Thread Simone Tripodi
+1 * tag build works fine; * binary signatures are OK; * site is updated with snippets including generics; * clirr doesn't show any single backward compatibility error; * changes report contains 1.6 release; * checkstyle is OK. trivial notes: * RAT reports 3 Unapproved licenses but t