We have -0 votes. I would propose rolling RC2 and starting a new vote. How do others feel about it?
The changes to address issues raised are committed and we are ready to do so. https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/commits/release-3.2 Thanks, Thomas On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Thomas Weise <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Justin, > > I also found a way to avoid DEPENDENCIES being added to the source archive. > > Should we roll another RC and call a new vote? > > Thanks, > Thomas > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Vlad Rozov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Justin, >> >> NOTICE files are automatically generated by Apache Maven remote resource >> plugin included and configured in the Apache parent pom. The configuration >> of the plugin points to org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 that has >> a known enhancement request (please see >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MASFRES-5). The same enhancement >> request suggest a workaround that we implemented to bring NOTICE files in >> sync. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Vlad >> >> >> On 10/22/15 21:45, Justin Mclean wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The NOTICE files are added to the .jar files by a plugin that is setup in >>>> the Apache POM. >>>> >>> It should be possible to get it to use our NOTICE file. Sorry I don’t >>> know enough about how that all works to be able to suggest how to do that. >>> Perhaps another mentor does? >>> >>> I see examples of not matching the top level NOTICE elsewhere where this >>>> POM is used. >>>> >>> In projects that produce multiple jars the notice in each jar may be >>> different, as it depends on the jars contents, so it could be that you are >>> seeing. Read the guiding priniciple [1] and note that it applies to >>> binaries as well [2]. At some point I assume you may want to ship a >>> convenience binary to users? >>> >>> I also see other releases with .jar artifacts that have no NOTICE file >>>> in it. >>>> >>> That’s not in line with current Apache policy. See [3]. >>> "Again, these artifacts may be distributed only if they contain LICENSE >>> and NOTICE files. For example, the Java artifact format is based on a >>> compressed directory structure and those projects wishing to distribute >>> jars must place LICENSE and NOTICE files in the META-INF directory within >>> the jar." >>> >>> You might want to look at similar JIRA issues here [4] and in particular >>> this one: >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-178 >>> >>> BTW as long as you raise a JIRA about this I don't think this need to be >>> fixed right away and can wait for a future incubating release. I wouldn’t >>> expect any IPMC member to consider this a blocking issue for a first >>> release. (And if they do point them to the JIRA). >>> >>> What is your recommendation, same NOTICE file in all .jar artifacts or >>>> generated NOTICE file with (changed) name of module? >>>> >>> It depends on the contents of each jar, again see 1 and 2. In Apex case >>> it may be that they are all the same, I’d need to take a close look at the >>> jar’s contents to determine. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Justin >>> >>> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle >>> 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary >>> 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distribute-other-artifacts >>> 4. >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-864?jql=text%20~%20%22META-INF%20NOTICE%22 >>> >> >> >
