Please open an issue in Jira for this one. That will touch every file. -JZ
On July 9, 2014 at 10:44:07 AM, Mike Drob ([email protected]) wrote: Just noticed another issue - Appendix A needs to be updated in all of the LICENCE files. Instead of providing a year and copyright owner, we should use placeholder values, like in http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work. To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) The text should be enclosed in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a file or class name and description of purpose be included on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier identification within third-party archives. Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: Just expand the header comment match what resides in the pom.xml Tomcat is a fine reference - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/site/trunk/docs/doap_Tomcat.rdf On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: * I’ve removed the dependency-reduced-pom.xml from the project. That was a mistake. * I’ve updated the license plugins to ignore .json and .thrift doap.rdf What’s incomplete? It doesn't have _any_ licensing information, just a copyright assertion. Check out LEGAL-114 and LEGAL-172 for a long history. That doap file has been that way for a while. Curator’s doap file looks just like ZooKeeper’s. Without having to dive into the minutia of those docs, can you describe what needs to be added? Or, can you point to another project’s DOAP file that is better? -JZ On July 9, 2014 at 10:20:56 AM, Mike Drob ([email protected]) wrote: On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: * curator-x-rpc/dependency-reduced-pom.xml This shouldn’t be part of the project Then it shouldn't be in the source or the release tag. :) * curator-x-rpc/src/test/resources/configuration/connections.json JSON doesn’t support comments so there’s no way to have license headers. When I run “mvn license:check” it comes back clean (with some warnings about unknown files). Yea, I'm not sure there's anything to be done for these, which is unfortunate. doap.rdf What’s incomplete? It doesn't have _any_ licensing information, just a copyright assertion. Check out LEGAL-114 and LEGAL-172 for a long history. On July 9, 2014 at 10:02:40 AM, Mike Drob ([email protected]) wrote: -1 (non-binding) Verified signature and hashes, all good. The git tag does not match the source zip: * zip contains a file called .test.swp * zip differs from tag on curator-x-rpc/dependency-reduced-pom.xml (brought up in the other thread) Missing licence headers: * curator-x-rpc/pom.xml * curator-x-rpc/dependency-reduced-pom.xml * curator-x-rpc/src/main/thrift/curator.thrift * curator-x-rpc/src/main/resources/curator/help.txt * curator-x-rpc/src/test/resources/configuration/connections.json * curator-x-rpc/src/test/resources/configuration/logging.json * curator-x-rpc/src/test/resources/configuration/simple.json * curator-x-rpc/src/test/resources/configuration/test.json Incomplete licence header: * doap.rdf Attempted to build from source: mvn clean verify * Compiled cleanly! * Had a test failure in TestDistributedDelayQueue.testSorting() (fixed in master) * Had a intermittent test failure in TestDistributedQueue.testCustomExecutor() (will investigate further) On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Eric Tschetter <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > On Wednesday, July 9, 2014, Ashish <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > Ran the build. Works fine and all test cases passed > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < > > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > > wrote: > > > > > Validated keys > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > On July 8, 2014 at 5:08:37 PM, Cameron McKenzie ( > [email protected] > > <javascript:;>) > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > This is the vote for Apache Curator version 2.6.0 > > > > > > *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours > > > > > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are > > > provided for convenience. > > > > > > Link to release > > > notes: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12327098 > > > > > > Staging repo:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.6.0/ > > > > > > Binary artifacts: > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1004 > > > > > > > > > The tag to be voted > > > upon: > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=apache-curator-2.6.0 > > > > > > Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the > > > release:http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > Cam > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > thanks > > ashish > > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal > > >
