On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org> wrote: > 2009/11/24 David Crossley <cross...@apache.org>: >> Ross Gardler wrote: >>> David Crossley wrote: >>> > Ross Gardler wrote: >>> >> David Crossley wrote: >>> >> > Ross Gardler wrote: >>> >> >> Tim Williams wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > FOR-855 verify the license situation prior to each release >>> >> >> > - housekeeping >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I believe Davids work with RAT fixes this issue. >>> >> > >>> >> > No it does not. There is much more to the job that that. >>> >> >>> >> I meant that running RAT shows all licence headers are in place. we >>> >> still need to do the housekeeping work that is normal due diligence on >>> >> a release, of course. >>> > >>> > I meant that FOR-855 has much more than just the license header situation. >>> > I have been working on it steadily for a long time now, and there is more >>> > to do. >>> >>> OK, I should have reviewed the issue. I have no opinion on whether >>> this is a blocker or not. I assumed that previous releases were >>> legally sound (which I believe they were since we voted them through). >> >> We have cut corners on previous releases. Our top-level LICENSE.txt file >> is not in line with agreed ASF best practice. It is supposed to display >> relevant licenses for supporting products. > > Hmm.... not good. > > I wonder if this has occured as things have crept into plugins. > Perhaps each plugin should have a licence.txt file and the build > system should merge them together at build time. > >> Also all supporting product licenses need to be systematically reviewed. >> Since the last release some things have been haphazardly added to SVN. >> Also last time we could easily have missed some. > > I've tried to review every commit for such things. I hope others have > been doing the same to catch the ones I miss. I'm pretty sure that a > review of licences is already in the release workflow - if not it > should be, for the reasons you give. > >>> Tim indicated that this was "housekeeping" which I took to mean the >>> normal due diligence on a release. >> >> Yes, but i marked it as Blocker (same process as i did for the previous >> releases) because a release should not be rolled until the situation is >> suitable. > > I'm not saying it is not a blocker, I'm agreeing it is part of the > required housekeeping of a release. In other words we are in agreement > ;-)
Sorry, I might have inadvertently caused this confusion with my imprecise wording, "housekeeping," which seems to have unintentionally trivialized it. I meant it as in "a necessary part of the release process" as opposed to, say, a "bug". >> I will plod along with FOR-855 and FOR-857 while other people >> attend to other things. > > Thank you. I'd like to say I'd help, but to be honest I doubt I'll > find the time. I'm going out of town for a week for our Thanksgiving holidays here in America, I'll pick this up when I get back... Thanks, --tim
