Hi John,

I am too. I think Roy Fielding is there as well. It will be good for Legal to 
be definitive so that we can put the question to rest.

Regards,
Dave

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 4:14 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Heh, and I just commented on DAFFODIL-1900.  I tend to be on the opposite
> side of the boat, leaning towards not needing headers.  At the end of the
> day, I don't care.  Whatever route you guys want to go is fine.
> 
> Agreed on all other points.
> 
> John
> 
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the review!
>> 
>> 1a) I've created LEGAL-369 to get guidance on the OGF document.
>> 
>> 1b) I've created DAFFODIL-1899 to fix the LICENSE/NOTICE issues.
>> 
>> 2a) The current version of rat 0.12 when run from the command line says
>> the excluded files are "Files with unapproved licenses". It does not
>> seem to detect them as non-Apache but permissible. Perhaps the licenses
>> aren't included in a way RAT can detect. Will investigate this issue.
>> 
>> 2b) I've created DAFFODIL-1900 for this, but have assigned it to our
>> next release to investigate best how to handle this.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> - Steve
>> 
>> 
>> On 02/12/2018 03:46 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>> Hi -
>>> 
>>> A few quick comments from a partial review of the Source and Binary
>> release.
>>> 
>>> (1) LICENSE & NOTICE.
>>> 
>>> (a) The copyright portions that are in the LICENSE on the various
>> licenses
>>> should be moved to the NOTICE. The LICENSE should still include which
>> files are
>>> under the other licenses.
>>> 
>>> (b) The Open Grid Forum DFDL v1.0 license needs to be confirmed as
>> permissible
>>> by the Legal Affairs committee. This should include guidance about
>> NOTICE vs.
>>> LICENSE. Legal JIRA issues can be created in the issue tracker.
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LEGAL
>>> 
>>> (2) .rat-excludes
>>> 
>>> (a) The following should not be excluded. RAT should pick up the
>> licenses as
>>> category A if they are present.
>>> # passera is 3-clause BSD
>>> passera
>>> 
>>> # copyright Scala BSD license
>>> Utility.scala
>>> UniquenessCache.scala
>>> 
>>> # copyright w3c with permissive license
>>> XMLSchema.dtd
>>> XMLSchema.xsd
>>> XMLSchema_for_DFDL.xsd
>>> datatypes.dtd
>>> xml.xsd
>>> 
>>> (b) Test files.
>>> 
>>> For the future, but not now. There have been debates in other projects.
>> Guidance
>>> from some on legal-discuss@ has been to include license headers in test
>> files
>>> and then have the test tooling eliminate the license so that tests do
>> not have
>>> to take it into account or be rewritten.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 12, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org
>>>> <mailto:slawre...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I believe we have now resolved all issues raised so far in 2.1.0-rc1.
>>>> The name changes in dist/dev/daffodil will go into effect for the rc2
>>>> release files.
>>>> 
>>>> John or Dave, have either of you had a chance to review the release any
>>>> further? We'd definitely like to incorporate any of your feedback before
>>>> we create an rc2 release.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> - Steve
>>>> 
>>>> On 02/08/2018 01:24 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>>>>> Well, before starting a new let's review the existing.  I would like a
>> bit
>>>>> of time to review the whole release archive.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What you mentioned is correct, effectively anything on the /dist/dev
>> should
>>>>> comply with the package naming scheme.  You should consider whether or
>> not
>>>>> you want to put everything on /dist/dev (we tend to recommend only the
>>>>> source release goes there, to avoid confusion).  When projects do stage
>>>>> other artifacts there, they should all be named the same way.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have a long standing disagreement with many IPMC members.  I tend to
>>>>> follow the release requirements very closely and push back on an over
>>>>> assumption of the requirements.  Most projects implement the
>> -incubating
>>>>> suffix as a part of the version #, but that's not required.  So my
>>>>> interpretation is that maven distributions do not need to include
>>>>> -incubating.  We have set this precedent before with Apache Groovy
>> where
>>>>> only the source release was staged and voted upon, the actual maven
>> central
>>>>> distribution omitted the -incubating and I'm in full support of that
>>>>> approach.
>>>>> 
>>>>> John
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:58 PM Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org
>>>>> <mailto:slawre...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Multiple issues have been found with this release, so I am officially
>>>>>> canceling this vote. We would still ask for continued review of the
>>>>>> 2.1.0-rc1 release so that any issues found can be fixed in the
>> 2.1.0-rc2
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> - Steve
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 02/08/2018 11:30 AM, Steve Lawrence wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (Incubating)
>>>>>> 2.1.0-rc1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
>>>>>>> found at:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc1/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Staging artifacts can be found at:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1000/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to
>>>>>>> slawre...@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS
>> file.
>>>>>>> This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is also listed here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1864?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours
>>>>>>> (ends on Sunday, 11 February 2018, 12 Noon EST).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My vote: +1
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> - Steve
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Reply via email to