On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Joe Bohn wrote: > On 4/14/10 12:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: >> A few general notes to the community about Apache releases, since this is >> the first release. Fundamentally, release notes apply to source code. >> Although the svn tag is typically what you think about for a "release". The >> actual release, from an ASF perspective, is the source archive prepared by >> the release manager. Quite complicated in this case, since there are so many >> release archives (e.g. >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/org/apache/aries/blueprint/blueprint/0.1-incubating/blueprint-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip >> ) > > Good point. I reviewed the tag but didn't look in detail at these archives. > Looking a bit more closely I see the following: > > - Instead of just parent there are 3 source "parent" archives: parent, > default-parent, and java5-parent. Was that by design? yes
david jencks > - I don't see a samples source archive anywhere. > > Based upon the missing samples archive, Kevan's license concerns, and the > missing samples archive I have to change my vote to "-1". > > Joe > > > > Actally building all of these projects is a pain in the rump... >> >> BTW, I sometimes diff the source "release" archive against the svn tag. Note >> that several of the release archives contain a DEPENDENCY file that isn't in >> svn. I don't see an issue releasing with the DEPENDENCY file, just pointing >> out that there can be differences... >> >> I've sampled the signature/checksums -- they look good. RAT output looks >> good. Build is painful, but worked. >> >> I see a few issues with the LICENSE files, however: >> >> 1) jpa-0.1-incubating includes two dual-licensed files (persistence-xsd.rsrc >> and persistence_2_0-xsd.rsrc). The LICENSE in the jar file properly reflects >> this. However, the files are also in the source. So, they also need to be >> included in the source LICENSE file >> 2) Since Apache will not redistribute these files under GPL, we must >> explicitly choose the license we are applying to these files. As the license >> explains in these two files by including the following: "[Contributor] >> elects to include this software in this distribution under the [CDDL or GPL >> Version 2] license." >> 3) org.apache.aries.transaction.manager-0.1-incubating.jar contains Geronimo >> and HOWL class files. However, the jar file does not properly reflect this >> in the LICENSE/NOTICE files. Geronimo should be fine, I think the Geronimo >> transaction notice file only refers to the geronimo project. However, the >> HOWL license needs to be included in the LICENSE file. >> >> Base on the above, I'm -1. >> >> I didn't see any other issues... >> >> --kevan >> >> On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote: >> >>> I've staged a release candidate for Aries (Incubating) v0.1. The >>> following Aries top level modules are staged and tagged in >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/tags/ at revision >>> 932654. The artifacts are in two staged repos. >>> >>> Modules staged at >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-008/ >>> are: >>> >>> parent >>> eba-maven-plugin >>> testsupport >>> util >>> transaction >>> web >>> application >>> jmx >>> jpa >>> samples >>> >>> Modules staged at >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-010/ >>> are: >>> >>> blueprint >>> jndi >>> >>> The RAT and IANAL bulid checks passed. >>> >>> The vote will be open for 72 hours. >>> >>> [ ] +1 >>> [ ] +0 >>> [ ] -1 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jeremy >> >> > > > -- > Joe
