Thanks again Ate. I will fix this and will make a RC2 before calling for a vote.
Meanwhile, I request all dev's to look into optimizing the binary distribution and I agree with Ate that there are quite a few duplicates we can get rid of. Suresh On Nov 6, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Ate Douma wrote: > On 11/06/2011 07:12 AM, Suresh Marru wrote: >> Hi Ate, >> >> Thank you very much for reviewing and early feedback. This really helps to >> sort out things before the formal vote which is still waiting on fixing the >> nexus setup. As for the LICENSE and NOTICE files, I was lost reading too >> many release guides. Your discussion on rave-dev list (http://goo.gl/v482T) >> helped me clear up the confusion. Can you please verify if I understood the >> following correctly: > > For the incubator the guidelines from the Release Management document really > are very clear IMO, and those should be followed. > >> >> 1) We will need to maintain two sets of LICENSE and NOTICE files. Since >> airavata source does not have any external code in the source tree, the >> LICENSE and NOTICE files within the root of source should remove mentioning >> of all third party delegates and only should have ASF V2. Is this correct? > Yes > >> >> 2) The binary distribution should have a different set of LICENSE and NOTICE >> files. Since at build time, we pull in multiple jars in package them up, the >> binary distribution should actually have all the licenses of the dependent >> jars explicitly mentioned. > Yes > >> >> 3) If we have multiple jars of same license, can we just name multiple >> dependencies and the license/notice or should we explicitly spell out each >> one separately? > Just mention which dependency uses which license and its OK then to group > them up together, no need for unneeded redundancy here :) > >> >> If 2 is correct, can you please point me to a good reference (preferably >> java project which bundles jars in distribution)? I tried to follow, https, >> axis2 and ODE examples. To my own surprise, in comparison, Airavata has >> fairly large dependent jars (making the binary distribution 200MB). The >> diverse features may be the reason, but that still not an excuse and this is >> something we need to work in the future releases to closely analyze all >> dependencies and strip off the ones which are really not needed or have >> redundant implementations. > Apache Rave should be a good example :) > > I haven't really reviewed the actual contents of the distributions. 200Mb > seems like quite a lot. I think there might be some dependencies doubled up > multiple times here? Like these .aar files which are rather big, do they > (again) maybe package the same set of dependencies within? > I also noticed there is a target build folder (although small) in one of the > examples which could be stripped. And I see the jackrabbit-standalone-2.2.7 > ueber-jar packaged under /lib (which is 33Mb). Probably that one also doubles > several dependencies. > I think there should be room for further optimizing the size of this > distribution quite a lot. > >> Thanks, >> Suresh >> >> >> On Nov 6, 2011, at 4:48 AM, Ate Douma wrote: >> >>> Hi Suresh, >>> >>> While I haven't checked out the code yet I noticed a first issue right up >>> with regards to the LICENSE and NOTICE files. >>> Currently these files 'delegate' to 3rd party LICENSE/NOTICE files embedded >>> in bundled artifacts. However, this is not according to the Apache rules >>> and will likely result in down voting this release if put up for vote. >>> >>> Please use and follow the instructions and guidelines as given in the >>> Incubator Release Management Guideline [1] and specifically [2] for this. >>> >>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html >>> [2] >>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Ate >>> >>> >>> On 11/05/2011 06:53 PM, Suresh Marru wrote: >>>> Discussion thread for vote on airavata 0.1-incubating release candidate. >>>> >>>> Since we are waiting on the nexus setup for the formal vote, I am sending >>>> the details ahead. So please continue testing and discuss results. >>>> >>>> Detailed change log/release notes: >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/airavata/tags/0.1-incubating/RELEASE_NOTES >>>> >>>> SVN source tag (r1198113): >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/airavata/tags/0.1-incubating/ >>>> >>>> Maven staging repo: >>>> TODO >>>> >>>> Source release: >>>> http://people.apache.org/builds/incubator/airavata/0.1-incubating/apache-airavata-0.1-incubating-source.tar.gz >>>> http://people.apache.org/builds/incubator/airavata/0.1-incubating/apache-airavata-0.1-incubating-source.zip >>>> >>>> Binary Artifacts >>>> http://people.apache.org/builds/incubator/airavata/0.1-incubating/apache-airavata-0.1-incubating-bin.tar.gz >>>> http://people.apache.org/builds/incubator/airavata/0.1-incubating/apache-airavata-0.1-incubating-bin.zip >>>> >>>> PGP release keys (signed using 617DDBAD): >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/airavata/KEYS >>>> >>>> If you have any questions or feedback or to post results of validating the >>>> release, please reply to this thread. >>>> >>>> For reference, the Apache release guide - >>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html >>>> Incubator specific release guidelines - >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html >>>> >>>> Some tips to validate the release before you vote: >>>> >>>> * Download the binary version and run the 5 minute or 10 minute tutorial >>>> as described in README and website. >>>> * Download the source files from compressed files and release tag and >>>> build (which includes tests). >>>> * Verify the distributon for the required LICENSE, NOTICE and DISCLAIMER >>>> files >>>> * Verify if all the staged files are signed and the signature is >>>> verifiable. >>>> * Verify if the signing key in the project's KEYS file is hosted on a >>>> public server >>>> >>>> Thanks for your time in validating the release and voting, >>>> Suresh >>
