Thursday, January 7, 2016, 2:59:44 PM, Sergio Fernández wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I guess the timing picked is not the best for having more people on >> > board... >> >> Yeah, but it was simply when the code was ready. > > > True. Just keep in in mind for the future, specially with such small > community is harder to get attention during holidays breaks.
(Holiday breaks and weekends is when I can find the most time to develop FM...) >> > BTW, the release manager can also vote a release. >> >> When he knows what's he doing... :) >> > > :-) > > > >> * Release is not tagged in git tags, and vote mail does not contain >> commit id to check. >> >> Indeed, the commit ID was missing. >> > > In git, commit id is the single trustable reference to check the source. > Release should be available somewhere, typically in a release branch while > the vote is running. > > > >> As of tagging, I used to do that when the commit has actually made it >> to become a public release, because tags are public. Is that good that >> way? >> >> > * There is a URL to the maven staging area. >> >> You wanted to write that there's *no* URL? (We had no Maven access yet >> when it was done.) >> > > Yes, I actually wanted to say "there is *no" URL". From my experience > staging repos are a very effective way to get early feedback from users who > don't want to build the release from the code. > > You'll need to to push the release to Maven central, so it's better to have > it as soon as possible. I already requested it to INFRA, see > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11045 Sorry if I was misunderstandable. I did that days ago, and in principle we have it already. >> * Tarballs contain wrong source layout, the root directory contains >> > no version details (apache-freemaker-src and >> > apache-freemarker-gae-src respectively). >> >> OK. (The misinformation came from >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html: "For >> project, Apache Foo (say) with source and binary types, it is >> conventional for the main binary to unpack to apache-foo and the >> source to apache-foo-src.".) > > > Good point. Guides could be wrong or incomplete, so always ask if you have > questions. > > I've just update it http://svn.apache.org/r1723530 to remark the best > practice to include the version. > > > >> > * The section about the "files developed outside the FreeMarker >> > project" in the LICENSE file should actually go in the NOTICE, >> > specifying details there. I'd say the path should be full from the >> > root of the sources: src/main/resources/freemarker/ext/... >> >> I did these. >> > > AS I did not find them with the provided info, I guess all users may need > the precise pointer. > > >> I wonder, since the owner of FreeMarker is now the ASF, do we still >> need to add notices for those DTD-s that are also Apache products >> (though from a different project)? > > > Owned by ASF, yes, but by another project, so should be noticed. > > > >> > * Also I'd move the "Historical notes" to the README. >> >> I have instead deleted them, if that's fine. I don't think they are >> useful enough (or well visible for lawyer-types) to be in the README. >> There's a page about the project history on the web site which covers >> this topic. >> > > Then fine to remove it. > > >> * Source tree contains some JARs at >> > src/test/resources/freemarker/ext/jsp/webapps/ that shoudl be noticed in >> NOTICE >> >> Added them, also the OpenOffice files. These are all produced by the >> FreeMarker project BTW. > > > Good. > > >> Thanks for your remarks, I will soon come up with a new attempt to >> vote on! > > > Great! > -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany
