As a general side-note ( for the first few releases atleast), it would be 
useful for everyone if the folks who vote on a release can list out all the 
various things that they checked from the release checklist as well as any 
other additional things that they did ( running system level integration tests, 
deployed+test jobs, etc ). 

thanks
— Hitesh

On Oct 23, 2015, at 2:27 PM, David Yan <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm also +1 for cutting a new RC2 release for a new round of votes.
> 
> David
> 
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Vlad Rozov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> +1 to cut new RC2 and submit it for voting.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Vlad
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/23/15 10:24, Thomas Weise wrote:
>> 
>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to