On 7/14/07, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 14 July 2007 08:51, Karl Pauls wrote:
> http://people.apache.org/~rickhall/felix-1.0.0.html
>
> We ask that you please vote to approve these release archives:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the Felix 1.0.0 sub-project releases.
[x] -1
First thing; One can't VETO a release, only codebase changes. So the above is
a vote against release, to be counted normally. However, most projects tries
to resolve any disagreements to reach consensus and not force through
decisions, although sometimes necessary. Nevertheless...
I agree, we should try to resolve the disagreements - please find my
comments inline.
Second thing; The reason for the negative vote is a somewhat non-compliant
release format.
* LICENSE and NOTICE must be in root directory of the tarballs of the source.
Darn. We missed that one. This happened because our overall layout for
the 0.8.0-incubator release was a different one and we forgot to take
the changes into account. I agree that the current location is not
good.
Apache is about Open SOURCE, and there are no requirements to distribute
a pre-built binary. However, if that is done, the same files should go into
the root of that binary tarball. The situation for Maven produced artifacts
are still a little bit unclear, but I think we will end up with the same
requirement there.
Well, I'm somewhat confused about this because that was the location
they where in initially for the 0.8.0-incubator release but we changed
that to META-INF after being told so during the IPMC vote. While I
agree that the root makes it easier to find the files I guess the
META-INF dir makes some sense for jar files as well. Could you point
us to the place this requirement is stated?
* The org.osgi.core says in NOTICE that it includes files from the OSGi
Alliance, but there is no license included nor referenced.
The org.osgi.core includes the ALv2 and that is the license that the
OSGi Alliance made it files available under. So while somewhat
confusing, we just followed the rule that omission of a specific
license mentioning denotes the default license.
* Peter Kriens "All rights reserved." copyright requires a license, which
is not referenced.
This is almost the same issue as with org.osgi.core. The license is
not referenced because it is the ALv2. Furthermore, in this case we
don't even include the code but merely have a dependency on it.
Otherwise, EXCELLENT to see the progress!
Thanks.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
Overall, I'd like to mention that the points you mention existed in
our 0.8.0-incubator release as well and didn't provoke a -1 (neither
in case of our, nor of the IPMC vote) -- with the exception of the
location of the LICENSE and NOTICE files of the tarballs. As stated
above, the location of the LICENSE and NOTICE files for the jar's was
suggested during the IPMC vote.
So how do we proceed from here? I'd personally like to pause the vote
and update the source release artifacts to include the LICENSE and
NOTICE files in the root. Would that be a way for you to change your
vote?
regards,
Karl
--
Karl Pauls
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
