Svet, There's a discussion going on elsewhere in ASF[1] about The JSON License[2] - it was previously acceptable to ASF and was on the Category A list[3]. However, it's been realised that the decision to place it in Category A was incorrect, and it has now been moved to Category X. This means that software covered by The JSON License must not be a transitive dependency of Apache software releases.
I believe that the software this affects is the "json.org" or "org.json" Java JSON library. I don't think that we use this, but it's possible that it's a transitive dependency. If this comes up in your LICENSE rework then we'll need to take some action on it - we have a grace period so it doesn't necessarily have to be replaced this release, although we would need to update NOTICE. However there exist drop-in compatible replacements so it may be easier to just deal with it now. If you'd like me to link you to more of the discussion then I can do that. Richard. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bb18f942ce7eb83c11438303c818b885810fb76385979490366720d5@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E [2]http://www.json.org/license.html [3]https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-a On 24 November 2016 at 13:52, Svetoslav Neykov < svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > That's some good news. Thanks for taking the time to look at this Andrea. > I also have some progress to share. Today I was finally able to build > Brooklyn with all tests passing (consistently at that) - on a branch that > had all my recent PRs. Thanks Geoff for reviewing and merging all of them. > I'm currently checking whether our LICENSE files need an update because of > updated dependencies and fixing the corresponding scripts to work with the > current project structure. Next will turn my attention to testing the > jclouds 1.9.3 PRs. As soon as they are merged we can have our first RC. > > Also would be nice to include a proper fix for what #452 [1] tried to > solve (but failed at). > Any other suggestions for PRs to include in the RC are welcome. > > Our change log needs some love so any help there will be greatly > appreciated. > > Svet. > > > On 24.11.2016 г., at 15:16, Andrea Turli <andrea.tu...@cloudsoftcorp.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > jclouds 1.9.3 is officially out -- see > > http://markmail.org/thread/qlapnppmfbilje7p for more details > > > > ---- > > > > FYI @bostko already created this PR to bump jclouds version > > https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/457 > > > > I've generated the dependency:list from tag rel/jclouds-1.9.2 and > > rel/jclouds-1.9.3 from jclouds/jclouds repos (see > > https://gist.github.com/andreaturli/b7c178519ab4d029d562643426a2738d and > > https://gist.github.com/andreaturli/8d54e4340ef0a4c650022396b4b54b89) > and > > apart from org.apache.jclouds versions I can't see any new version for > the > > transitive dependencies. > > > > ---- > > > > I've also checked the swift vs openstack-swift issue when targeting the > > brooklyn persistence to IBM SoftLayer Object Storage: it works fine with > > jclouds 1.9.3 and jclouds 2.0.0 so this shouldn't be an issue for the > > release. (see https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-examples/pull/90) > > > > HTH, > > Andrea > > > > On 18 November 2016 at 12:19, Andrea Turli <andrea.turli@cloudsoftcorp. > com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi there, > >> > >> I've released the Apache jclouds 1.9.3-rc1 (see [1] and [2] for more > >> details) > >> > >> Please download, test and vote if you can! > >> > >> Andrea > >> > >> [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > 42f3a91008890939cf344f35320f86 > >> bcc48f814119655d7347c9bcca@%3Cdev.jclouds.apache.org%3E > >> [2]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > 94981b8f456785ffea640af3be9207 > >> 103bb4b7ee2f6d5bb783e98c2c@%3Cdev.jclouds.apache.org%3E > >> > >> On 17 November 2016 at 19:01, Duncan Johnston Watt <duncan.johnstonwatt@ > >> cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 Andrea thanks > >>> > >>> Duncan Johnston-Watt > >>> CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation > >>> > >>> Twitter | @duncanjw > >>> Mobile | +44 777 190 2653 > >>> Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt > >>> Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt > >>> > >>> On 17 November 2016 at 06:09, Aled Sage <aled.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1, sounds great - thanks Andrea! > >>>> > >>>> There are some really import jclouds fixes in 1.9.3-SNAPSHOT (or > 2.0.0) > >>>> that we want, such as an OutOfMemoryError deploying to Softlayer [1]. > >>>> > >>>> It's worth hanging fire on Brooklyn 0.10.0 until we have a jclouds > 1.9.3 > >>>> release. > >>>> > >>>> In the meantime, we should still get our own house in order by doing > the > >>>> first of the steps below (i.e. dealing with open PRs; ensuring no-one > >>> has > >>>> any imminent important contributions to make for 0.10.0, etc). > >>>> > >>>> Aled > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-364 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 17/11/2016 11:37, Alex Heneveld wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> That would be a great solution Andrea! > >>>>> > >>>>> Best > >>>>> Alex > >>>>> > >>>>> On 17 Nov 2016 08:18, "Andrea Turli" <andrea.tu...@cloudsoftcorp.com > > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm happy to volunteer for releasing an official jclouds 1.9.3 which > >>> may > >>>>>> be > >>>>>> the half-house solution here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> wdyt? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Andrea > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 17 November 2016 at 08:25, Svetoslav Neykov < > >>>>>> svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is going to be the first release that actually works in Karaf. > >>> The > >>>>>>> docs are still assuming classic though so I suggest we keep > >>> recommending > >>>>>>> the classic distribution for 0.10.0. > >>>>>>> For next release let's plan on updating the docs and switching the > >>>>>>> recommended distribution to the Karaf based one. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Svet. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 16.11.2016 г., at 13:22, Aled Sage <aled.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It's far past time that we did a Brooklyn 0.10.0 release! I > suggest > >>> we > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> aim for that soon. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> To that end, I suggest the following steps: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> * Deal with open PRs: > >>>>>>>> o People shout out about any PRs you think are very important > >>> to > >>>>>>>> be merged, before that release. > >>>>>>>> o Review open PRs > >>>>>>>> (for any that won't get merged into 0.10.0, clearly mark > >>> them as > >>>>>>>> such and say why). > >>>>>>>> * Any pending/remaining work: > >>>>>>>> o Give people until Friday evening (uk time) to submit any > >>> other > >>>>>>>> very important PRs that are being working on. > >>>>>>>> o People shout out about any known issues that they see as > >>>>>>>> blockers for a release. > >>>>>>>> * Do some initial testing, using master (before Friday). > >>>>>>>> * Aim to produce a first release candidate on Friday evening (uk > >>> time). > >>>>>>>> * Do the usual QA/fix cycle until the release is ready. > >>>>>>>> * Write release notes, etc. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Of the first steps, reviewing the PRs is a big piece of work! If > you > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> have time to help, then please lend a hand by reviewing and/or > >>> testing > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> PRs, and commenting on them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I don't think we should try to squeeze lots of additional PRs into > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 0.10.0 - there is already a huge amount in there compared to 0.9.0! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Richard, are our release process docs up-to-date at [1]? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Aled > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [1] http://brooklyn.apache.org/developers/committers/release- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> process/index.html > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >
