Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-17 Thread Gary Gregory
+1 Gary On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > All, > > Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc2). > > Maven repository: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1166 > Artifacts: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/com

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-17 Thread Sean Busbey
Yes, that's correct. I'm now +1 (non-binding) -- Sean Busbey On May 16, 2016 13:44, "Josh Elser" wrote: > Sean, > > Circling back around on the discussions today about Jackrabbit's NOTICE > file, this would change your -1 vote, yes? > > Sean Busbey wrote: > >> -1 (non-binding) >> >> bad: >> >>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-17 Thread Josh Elser
Thanks Bernd and Jörg for your votes so far! By my tally, we're one (binding) vote away from passing this! Gary or Sebb, any chance either of you could cast a vote (I assume this fell by the wayside when we thought there were issues with the NOTICE file)? sebb wrote: On 17 May 2016 at 17:57,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-17 Thread sebb
On 17 May 2016 at 17:57, Bernd wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks Josh! > > This is a binding +1 > > (however I have some minor optional points which could be fixed in another > RC or before releasing the repo): > > > 2016-05-12 5:29 GMT+02:00 Josh Elser : > >> All, >> >> Please consider the following for

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-17 Thread Bernd
Hello, Thanks Josh! This is a binding +1 (however I have some minor optional points which could be fixed in another RC or before releasing the repo): 2016-05-12 5:29 GMT+02:00 Josh Elser : > All, > > Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc2). > > Maven repository

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-17 Thread Jörg Schaible
Hi, built this version from source the tarball. IBM JDK' still fail, but it seems caused by a test making wrong assumptions (see VFS-500). Built with JDK 9 fails because of failure with jar plugin. However, all tests pass previously. Therefore: +1 Cheers, Jörg Josh Elser wrote: > All, > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-16 Thread Josh Elser
Sean, Circling back around on the discussions today about Jackrabbit's NOTICE file, this would change your -1 vote, yes? Sean Busbey wrote: -1 (non-binding) bad: * LICENSE/NOTICE file is missing a bundled third party reference[1] maybe fine: * source artifacts mostly match source tag[2] *

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-13 Thread Gary Gregory
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:13 AM, sebb wrote: > On 13 May 2016 at 01:24, Sean Busbey wrote: > > -1 (non-binding) > > > > bad: > > > > * LICENSE/NOTICE file is missing a bundled third party reference[1] > > > > maybe fine: > > > > * source artifacts mostly match source tag[2] > > * build / test fr

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-13 Thread sebb
On 13 May 2016 at 01:24, Sean Busbey wrote: > -1 (non-binding) > > bad: > > * LICENSE/NOTICE file is missing a bundled third party reference[1] > > maybe fine: > > * source artifacts mostly match source tag[2] > * build / test from source works[3] > > fine: > * verified signatures and checksums[4]

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-13 Thread sebb
On 13 May 2016 at 03:18, Josh Elser wrote: > Hey Sean, > > #1 sounds like you're right here. I hadn't done a close enough over the > codebase. I will defer to PMC members with more history than the few weeks I > have... > > #2/3 about the sandbox is intentional. There is code in the sandbox which

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-12 Thread Gary Gregory
Wow, good catch on #1. I had not seen it. Aside from that, it looks good (MD5, SHA1, ASC, reports, build). So another RC and we should be good to go. Gary On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > -1 (non-binding) > > bad: > > * LICENSE/NOTICE file is missing a bundled third party r

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-12 Thread Josh Elser
Hey Sean, #1 sounds like you're right here. I hadn't done a close enough over the codebase. I will defer to PMC members with more history than the few weeks I have... #2/3 about the sandbox is intentional. There is code in the sandbox which is not "fit to be released" (see so previous conver

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-12 Thread Sean Busbey
-1 (non-binding) bad: * LICENSE/NOTICE file is missing a bundled third party reference[1] maybe fine: * source artifacts mostly match source tag[2] * build / test from source works[3] fine: * verified signatures and checksums[4] [1]: core/src/test/java/org/apache/commons/vfs2/provider/webda

Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons VFS 2.1 rc2

2016-05-12 Thread Gary Gregory
Thank you for rolling this out. I'll go through the RC tonight. Gary On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > All, > > Please consider the following for Apache Commons VFS2 version 2.1 (rc2). > > Maven repository: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons