I'm sorry, it is difficult to make a pull request be compatible with other pull request as I can't tell in advance the merge order, and I didn't want the file renames to go the wrong way around.
If you want I can recreate #24 from scratch now that you have merged the #21 and #23. (Thank you!). You don't need the close #24 as I can do an evil git push --force. Or we can just let the dual-modules jena-osgi and jena-osgi-test stay for the 2.13.0 release. The idea of #24 was not to add a OSGi binary distribution build (although it would leave an obvious place for it), it just reorganized the modules as you suggested. So for NOTICE/LICENSE, we can do that as a separate thread, although I thought the stub from #22 would be sufficient for now as it covers exactly the content of the bundle JAR (*.jena, xerces and xml-apis), and the NOTICE file of apache-jena/ is also done manually. (which does lead to a maintenance problem, I agree). To generate NOTICE automatically by Maven can be done, but I'm not very skilled in the magic here - perhaps others know more. For jena-osgi the challenge is to play with those scopes so that it's picks up the correct licenses - we don't want to declare any NOTICE for say HTTP Components as that is an external dependency that is not included in the bundle binary. On 2 February 2015 at 19:23, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > On 02/02/15 17:45, stain wrote: >> >> GitHub user stain opened a pull request: >> >> https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/24 >> >> Apache jena osgi >> >> Builds on #21 by splitting out jena-osgi* to submodules under >> `apache-jena-osgi`. >> >> Merges in #21, #22, #23 > > > Combined pull requests are harder to work with. They are extra work if not > all the merged PRs are accepted without change. > > I'm pulling (and fixing up) #21 and #23 now and have just pushed them intot > he Apache repo. > > #22 needs refining and discussion and it's very important > (+ NOTICE doesn't look right to me and there is no LICENSE; maybe > autogenerated works but that's yet more manual checking to do for a build > that takes 30mins from clean). > > So I would need to unpick #24. Time consuming, which is why I asked not to > do that. > > I'm sorry if I can't deal with these fast enough for you but the extra work > in processing them, sending emails as well as having £work to do makes me > slow. > > My ideal situation is to close #22 and #24 for now. We start with a new > baseline of the repo as it is at this moment, post #21 and #23. > > We *discuss* what needs to be done for the NOTICE+LICENSE on dev@. > > You can PR a rename though I was hoping for other commentary on that as > well. It might be easier to do after N&L is done. > > Andy > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, eScience Lab School of Computer Science The University of Manchester http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
