celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Celix version 1.0.0.incubating
Date Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:15:16 GMT
I know that some of the items are nits, but if we are to
re-cut an RC for Boost reasons -- I'd suggest we may
as well take care of them

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Alexander Broekhuis
<a.broekhuis@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

There was an old discussion on that some time ago. Basically
the problem boils down to a fact that I can't verify it with shasum(1)
and thus can't sign off on it.

>>    * 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.

Hm. I'm just curious -- was there a thread on this one?

>>    * 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.

I honestly don't recall this. Care to point a thread?

Thanks,
Roman.

Mime
View raw message