To help us move along towards the release, I ran the Release Audit Tool again and fixed up some missing headers and added . They were pretty trivial changes so I did them on master, they can be reviewed here in case I did anything wrong:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-allura.git;a=commit;h=6702bc7bf1ff2ba53daf2fbe05bf1357217508ab https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-allura.git;a=commit;h=53d8b05c2e35ef00123703e8da8f71d9c605a898 After that, I was left with just one file without license info: Allura/allura/tests/data/unicode_test.txt I wasn't sure what to do with that. It looks like it was sourced from somewhere else and I couldn't find a license for it. But it's just test data, so maybe it doesn't need a license, or maybe we can remove the test that uses it. Thoughts? On 5/8/13 1:41 PM, Peter Hartmann wrote: > W dniu 08.05.2013 16:58, Dave Brondsema pisze: >> I wonder if maybe we should do a simple first release (e.g. tarball of the >> whole >> thing, if that's the easiest option). Then we could get our first release >> out >> sooner. We can also work through any licensing/procedure concerns on the >> first >> release(s) and not have to worry about technical complexities at the same >> time. > I sort of agree. Also, I was going to mention that later, but it seems to me > now > that "codebase tarball" would be better way to do things because as far as i > know, tests are typically omitted from pypi packages.Tim was right again :) > > One problem I can see is that Allura doesn't seem too portable. I fixed some > related errors occuring on my distro (Arch Linux) but this may only be tip of > an > iceberg.Well, it's not like we'll know unless we get more people using it :P > > If it is possible, i'd recommend to mark this release as alpha or beta. As a > user I'd be surprised to find that stable release only works on a specified > setup of Ubuntu. > -- Dave Brondsema : [email protected] http://www.brondsema.net : personal http://www.splike.com : programming <><
