Ok. I will cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] at the same time. On 5/22/07, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shall we call a fresh vote on the latest distro? On 5/21/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have uploaded a new cut of ServiceMix 3.1.1 at > http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/servicemix-3.1.1-incubating/ > This one should fix all the issues Daniel mentionned. > > On 5/18/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It's weird because the javadocs jars have them > > and so it should be included in the source jars too. > > I've tried to include them without any success so far. > > > > On 5/18/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Umm... the sources jars still don't have the LICENSE/DISCLAIMER/NOTICE > > > files in them. > > > > > > The sigs look OK though. They validated fine. > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > On Friday 18 May 2007 10:13, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > > > I have uploaded a new release that should solve the last two problems. > > > > I agree we will have to address the first one before next release. > > > > I think due to this new upload, the vote period should be extended by > > > > 24 hours. > > > > > > > > On 5/17/07, Daniel Kulp < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 15 May 2007 10:28, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > > > > > [ X ] -1 Do not release ServiceMix 3.1.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > I will upload a rat report asap. > > > > > > > > > > I figure I'll -1 this before it gets to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > Issues: > > > > > 1) Procedural: you published these into the release repository. > > > > > Thus, they are already released. They should be staged into a > > > > > staging area, voted on there, then if the vote passes, moved into > > > > > the release repository. As it stands right now, it's technically > > > > > already released without a vote. > > > > > > > > > > 2) The sources jars and javadoc jars don't have the disclaimer, > > > > > notice, or license files in them. Thus, they are not releasable. > > > > > (look into the remote-resources plugin, the cxf/trunk/parent pom is > > > > > an example.) > > > > > > > > > > 3) Nothing has been gpg signed. All release artifacts must be gpg > > > > > signed. A "release" profile with the gpg plugin would solve this. > > > > > (you can use the cxf/trunk pom as an example) > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, IMO, it's not ready to go. If you have problems with the > > > > > maven stuff, feel free to ping me. I'd be glad to help out. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > J. Daniel Kulp > > > > > Principal Engineer > > > > > IONA > > > > > P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > > > > > -- > > > J. Daniel Kulp > > > Principal Engineer > > > IONA > > > P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Guillaume Nodet > > ------------------------ > > Principal Engineer, IONA > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Principal Engineer, IONA > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > -- James ------- http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Principal Engineer, IONA Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
