incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicholas L Gallardo <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
Date Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:28:40 GMT

Thanks Bryant.

Kevan, with your -1 I will cancel this vote and will spin a new build once
you have confirmed Bryant's changes.

We will re-vote on this in the Wink community and then bring it to the
Incubator PMC once that is complete.


Nicholas Gallardo
WebSphere  - REST & WebServices Development
Phone: 512-286-6258
Building: 903 / 5G-016

             Bryant Luk                                                    
             .com>                                                      To 
             10/30/2009 11:53                                           cc 
                                       Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0         
             Please respond to                                             

Hi Kevan,

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Kevan Miller <>
> On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> <snip>
>> Please note, I didn't actually vote on the release, I just pointed out
>> a few things that probably ought to change. I didn't vote because I
>> don't want to go and review all those very many binaries (or the build
>> process that creates them) and I'm not familiar enough with the
>> codebase to somehow "know" that all those binaries are somehow ok. If
>> I had thought these minor tidbits that I raise are enough to actually
>> vote -1, I would've made that clear, sorry that it wasn't.
>> Even if I _did_ vote, releases are majority votes, and 2 +1 beats a
>> single -1. Its just you need 3 votes.
>> In other words, all you need is one more +1 :)
> Nick and Bryant,
> I agree with Leo that the more accurate LICENSE/NOTICE files are
> preferrable. I probably would not change my vote for this reason.
> I'll make this easier... Digging some more, I found the following issues,
> which I missed earlier:
> axiom-api and axiom-impl jars
>  * both contain NOTICES with "Portions copyright IBM" statements. Those
> aren't mentioned in your NOTICE
> xml-apis
>  * NOTICE contains copyright statements for ibm, sun, and w3c
>  * contains additional license documentation (i.e.
> LICENSE.dom-documentation.txt, LICENSE.dom-software.txt, and
> LICENSE.sax.txt). If applicable, they need to be reflected in the wink
> license.
> jcip-annotations
>  *  i believe that this is licensed under creative commons attribution,
> is not mentioned in either the license or the notice
> I'm changing my vote to a -1.
> --kevan

I've added the axiom and jcip-annotations notices (and removed the
unnecessary notices I think) in:
Added the Creative Commons license for jcip-annotations to:

I would appreciate a review of these files for the binary release .
The source release will have the basic Apache License and notice as
originally suggested by Leo.  Need to work some simple Maven magic but
wanted to see if these files were ok first.

Upon some further investigation, I'll remove the xml-api dependency
since that isn't absolutely required for the Wink/Abdera functionality
to work (so everything that was in the release candidate minus the
xml-apis would also be in the future binary distribution) so that's
why I didn't add the xml-api notice/license.

Thanks for any feedback anyone can provide.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

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