celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Broekhuis <a.broekh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Celix version 1.0.0.incubating
Date Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:22:00 GMT
Hi Roman,

Thanks for your review. A few questions though

2014/1/21 Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@apache.org>

> A few problems that I think would be worth fixing for 1.0.0:
>    * it would be really nice to replace sha file with a more common format
>

The checksum has been created with the command mentioned on the Apache
Signing Releases page [1]. I don't see what is wrong with this.


>    * it would be nice to have version embedded into the name of the top
>      level dir inside of the tarball
>

We have decided to leave it out since else there would always be an issue
with the BUILDING instructions and the default directory. This was a remark
by someone on the first (0.0.1) release where we did have the version in
the top-level directory.


>    * boost license is missing in NOTICES
>

Why should the boost license be in the NOTICES file? There have been a lot
of discussions on this file, and my understanding always has been that if a
license is in a header it is not needed to add it to the NOTICES file.


>    * not sure what the licensing situation is with:
>         celix/remote_services/remote_service_admin_http/private/src/md5.inl
>

md5.inl is part of the civetweb/mongoose, and list the authors and does
have licensing information a bit down in the file. What is the problem with
it?




>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
>
[1]: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing#sha-checksum


> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Marcel Offermans
> <marcel.offermans@luminis.eu> wrote:
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > Validated the checksums and signature.
> > Setup the build system and built the framework and some of the modules.
> > Looked at a few random files and checked them for the correct license
> header.
> >
> > A small note:
> > The NOTICE file should be updated, it now states 2012, whilst it should
> reflect all the years, so 2012-2014. That's not a showstopper as far as I
> know, but should be fixed for the next release.
> >
> > Good release guys!
> >
> > Greetings, Marcel
> >
>



-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,

Alexander Broekhuis

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message