+1 (non binding)
Signatures verified after importing the 1CCF4647 key from here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/netbeans/KEYS
SHA1 digests match.
DISCLAIMER and NOTICE look good.
nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt, we need to work on making it smaller, but we
have documented ever
Hi,
Sorry but it -1 binding from me as the source release contains compiled code.
It’s not an open source release if it contains jars that contain compiled code
e.g. [1][2] And before you ask there is no exception for test resources. If you
need compiled code make it compile as part of the buil
Hi,
> Please check that your rat exclusions have not been set to too wide and rat
> shovel pick up these issues.
Correcting:
Please check that your rat exclusions have not been set to too wide as rat
should pick up these issues.
Thanks,
Justin
---
AFAIK these have all been removed, I removed several of these myself.
Gj
On Saturday, May 26, 2018, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Please check that your rat exclusions have not been set to too wide and
> rat shovel pick up these issues.
>
> Correcting:
>
> Please check that your rat exclu
On 2018/05/20 22:33:02, Emilian Bold wrote:
> The Apache NetBeans community has voted on and approved a proposal to
> release Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) rc1. We now kindly
> request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this
> incubator release candidate.
+1 (non-binding, Ne
Hi Justin,
I wonder where exactly (most) of these files come from. I just did:
$ wget
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-rc1-rc1/incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip
[this is the URL from the first e-mail in this thread]
$ sha1s
Thank you very much the review, Justin.
I created [RATIS-248] and [RATIS-249] to address the issues.
We will create a new release candidate and restart the vote after the
fixes. But if anybody see any _other_ issues, kindly ask to continue
this thread and give us more feedback.
Thank you ver
Hi,
> I wonder where exactly (most) of these files come from.
Sorry, many apologies, and my mistake as I looked at your last release by
accident. Changing my vote to +0 (binding).
I can still see the md5 hashes in the office release area [1] these should be
removed (but that’s a minor issue).
If we create an issue for removing that ZIP file, will you change your +0
to +1?
Gj
On Sunday, May 27, 2018, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I wonder where exactly (most) of these files come from.
>
> Sorry, many apologies, and my mistake as I looked at your last release by
> accident. Changin
Hi,
> If we create an issue for removing that ZIP file, will you change your +0
> to +1?
I’ve not had a chance to go over everything yet, it’s not a small simple
release.
Remember you only need 3 +1’s binding votes (which I think you have) and more
+1’s than -1’s to make a release.
Thanks,
Ju
Only binding votes from Ate and Bertrand thus far.
Gj
On Sunday, May 27, 2018, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > If we create an issue for removing that ZIP file, will you change your +0
> > to +1?
>
> I’ve not had a chance to go over everything yet, it’s not a small simple
> release.
>
> Remem
My suggestion is using BOM the manage the third party dependencies which
could save you some time to build a uber jar.
It's not a blocker issue for the release, but it's a common practice to
resolve the version conflicts of third party dependencies.
Willem Jiang
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: 姜宁wil
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I wonder where exactly (most) of these files come from.
>
> Sorry, many apologies, and my mistake as I looked at your last release by
> accident. Changing my vote to +0 (binding).
>
> I can still see the md5 hashes in the office r
> Minor issue is that LICENSE is missing mention of these files [1][2][3]
(but includes their license), be nice to fix that for the net release.
Justin, you're right. That's coming from that the 1st part LICENSE.bin.txt
file is taken from source tgz LICENSE file. There, we mention these files
sinc
Hi Willem, I'm personally not familiar with BOM in Maven but we'll surely
take
a look. We just want to ensure that, out of the box, users won't have to
experience weird runtime errors, due when incompatible versions of some
library
required by different components.
We'll look into this and few oth
The vote for releasing Apache Pulsar 2.0.0-rc1-incubating is now closed.
With a total of +3 binding votes and no -1 votes, the vote passes.
+1s (binding):
* Dave Fisher
* Willem Jiang
* Justin Mclean
Thank you to all the reviewers for taking the time to validate this release.
Matteo
On Sat
16 matches
Mail list logo
