jclouds-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Bayer <andrew.ba...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache jclouds 1.6.1-incubating RC3
Date Sun, 16 Jun 2013 23:01:08 GMT
Just the binary archives, yeah - the source bits are still there, and the
RC is otherwise unchanged.

A.

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Suresh Marru <smarru@apache.org> wrote:

> On Jun 16, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll yank it, then.
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for your persistence with the release, just to clarify are you just
> yanking the jclouds-cli-assembly-1.6.1-incubating* or working on a new RC?
> I am in the middle of my review and so far only have non-blocking
> suggestions. Will post notes and vote in the next couple of hours.
>
> Suresh
>
>
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> Something maybe someone will complain on general incubator@ is the
> >>> content of NOTICE file in
> >>> jclouds-cli-assembly-1.6.1-incubating.zip/tar.gz
> >>> It doesn't contain reference to others included binaries with ASF
> >>> license (as guava etc).
> >>> but IANAL and that's in DEPENDENCIES.
> >>> So +1 (IPMC binding) for me.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yeah, I agree with Olivier.
> >> I purposefully did not review -assembly as it's a binary, and thus not
> >> part of your release.  I really think that combining a convenience
> >> binary in the same place as the release artifacts is just inviting
> >> confusion and more places to receive criticism, especially while you
> >> are in the incubator. Again - it's not a release artifact, but no need
> >> to cloud the issue.
> >>
> >> --David
> >>
>
>

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