Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Portals Pluto 3.0.1 (Second Attempt)

+1 for Release

Tested:
* builds from source
* binary distribution runs
* Verified CVE-2015-1926 is no longer an issue

--
David S Taylor
707 529-9194
[email protected]
https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidseantaylor/

> On Jun 15, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Neil Griffin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Apache Portals Pluto Team and community,
> 
> It took me a few weeks to find room in my schedule, but thanks to Woonsan's helpful advice I've staged another candidate for the new Apache Portals Pluto 3.0.1
> release.
> 
> This release candidate includes:
> 
> * Fully compliant Reference Implementation of the new Portlet 3.0 Specification per JCR-362
>     https://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=362
> * Fully completed (and corrected) TCK (Test Compatibility Kit) for Portlet Spec 3.0
> * Updated portlet-api with associated Javadoc improvements
> * General bugfixes
> * Updated archetypes
> 
> Please review the release candidate for this project which is found in the following maven staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheportals-1022/
> 
> As Woonsan asked, the source and other artifacts have been made available at the /dist/dev directory:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/portals/pluto/
> 
> (These files will be promoted to /dist/release if the vote passes)
> 
> The Release Notes are available here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10560&version=12338908
> 
> The KEYS file to verify the release artifacts signature can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/portals/pluto/KEYS
> 
> Please review the release candidates and vote on releasing Apache Portals Pluto 3.0.1
> 
> REMINDER: According to the following policy:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval
>  "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all
>   signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet
>   all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all
>   cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their
>   own platform."
> 
> Seeing as how I am sending this on a Friday again, the normal vote of 72 hours
> seems unreasonable. Therefore I would like to extend the vote to 96 hours.
> 
> Please cast your vote:
> 
> [ ] +1 for Release
> [ ]  0  for Don't care
> [ ] -1 Don't release (do provide a reason then)
> 
> 
> Best Regards to all,
> 
> Neil