2015-06-08 0:56 GMT+02:00 Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]>: > I've only looked at the source release, but here's what I noted: > 1. tag and the content of the released zip file are different. I'd > like to understand the reasoning behind this delta. E.g. > benchmark and gradelw are missing, etc.
For the Gradle wrapper, this was discussed in [1], and we concluded that we don't want to remove the wrapper from our source tree, because it's a key part of the development process, but to mitigate legal issues we would remove it from the distribution sources, with instructions about how to do without it. > The most surprising > one is actually the change in content inside of: > src/examples/webapps/gsp-examples/readme.txt > src/spec/doc/tools-groovyeclipse.adoc > src/main/org/codehaus/groovy/tools/FileSystemCompiler.java > This is precisely something that * me off with the new release process. Before we go Apache, everything was smooth because *everything* was done from the CI server. Here, we had a glitch during the release process because something was committed on the release branch just before I made a local clone and pushed it to my GitHub personal fork. The reason we do this fork is explained in [2], basically because we are not allowed to give a CI server write access to the repo. To be clear, this should not have happened, but in any case the source of truth and what is really in the release is the source zip. The tag is here for reference. > 2. RAT complains about 128 Unknown Licenses. Granted, > this is mostly on .adoc but I think we can do better. License > headers in comments are pretty easy to slap. Also, making > RAT check available (and maitained) as part of Gradle build > would really help with automation. > We don't use Rat but the license plugin, which is better suited for Gradle. It has been configured for our project with the specific excludes (like licenses that should not be added or they will break documentation, as discussed and suggested by our mentor Emmanuel in [3]). The Rat task in the build is being gently worked by Paul for those at Apache who are more familiar with the license plugin, but it's not well suited for our project. > 3. The wording around licensing on > buildSrc/src/main/java/JavadocFixTool.java > makes me worried. Has the licensing implications of this > file every been discussed. > I don't think so. A fix like this has to be applied on *all* documentation that is generated on older JVM releases (Jdk 6 and first releases of JDK 7). We systematically apply it because we build on multple JDKs, so we cannot guarantee that the generated Javadoc is not vulnerable. Any project that doesn't do this has a serious problem. This is funny because I was actually the first one to turn this into a plugin for Gradle, before Ant or Maven did it, but our build doesn't use it. That said, if we use a plugin, we just hide the fact we're using such a tool :) [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-groovy-dev/201504.mbox/browser [2] http://groovy-lang.org/wiki/incubation-release-process.html [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-groovy-dev/201504.mbox/browser > Thanks, > Roman. > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Cédric Champeau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear community, > > > > I am happy to start the first VOTE thread for a Groovy release under the > > Apache Incubator umbrella! > > This release both includes a lot of bugfixes, but also required some > > adjustments for the sake of conforming to the Apache Software Foundation > and > > Apache Incubator guidelines. A big thank to all who contributed and > helped > > us! > > > > The changelog for this release can be found here: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318123&version=12331941 > > > > Tag for the release: > > > https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-groovy.git;a=tag;h=19f70958f39f0cc5c6b4d3e9471fd297400647d2 > > > > The artifacts to be voted on are located here: > > http://people.apache.org/~cchampeau/groovy/ > > > > Release artifacts are signed with the following keys: > > http://people.apache.org/~cchampeau/groovy/KEYS > > > > It is expected that voters check at least checksums and signatures, and > of > > course much better if you can also verify the source package. > > > > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating. > > > > The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at > least > > three +1 PPMC votes are cast. > > > > [ ] +1 Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating > > [ ] 0 I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I assume it's ok > > [ ] -1 Do not release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating because... > > > > Here is my vote: > > > > +1 (binding) > > >
