I would go look at CXF to get the notice files right. It's a matter of
the assembly descriptor.


On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do see these files in the overall "mahout" release file.
> They're also inside META-INF in the Maven artifacts like mahout-core.
>
> I do see them in all the distribution "src" files too.
> But yes they do not seem to be in the non-src artifacts!
>
> Seems like something to fix indeed and roll another release. Anybody expert
> in how this was set up that can easily see why this might not be copied to
> these artifacts?
> Or anyone else see any other potential holes here?
>
> (Before I roll release #3, anybody see anything else that would block a
> release?)
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> -1.
>>
>> There's no LICENSE.txt or NOTICE.txt file in the distribution files
>> (mahout-distribution-0.5.tar.gz and I assume others in that directory).
>>  These need to be in the root of the tarballs, etc.  I'm pretty sure they
>> used to be.  These should be in the base directories of all tarballs.  I see
>> them in the source release ones (in mahout/mahout) but even that has the
>> LICENSE included twice.
>>
>> I'm also going through all of our dependencies and checking they are
>> covered.  In Lucene, we put in some Ant script stuff that automatically
>> checks that all the deps are appropriate license, so we should think about
>> doing that.   Still need to run the tests, etc.
>>
>> More in a moment, my battery is about dead.
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>> On May 27, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>
>> > Testing now while on the plane!
>> >
>> > On May 27, 2011, at 3:07 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
>> >
>> >> Fair point. FWIW all the unit tests which ought to also exercise the
>> >> underlying code do pass.
>> >>
>> >> It looks like we have evidence of a problem with an example, which may
>> or
>> >> may not stem from a deeper or more significant bug in the core. To date
>> it
>> >> seems nobody has also run into this in other usage, and Shannon doesn't
>> see
>> >> any obvious problems.
>> >>
>> >> I don't want to release with a serious bug; on the other hand it doesn't
>> yet
>> >> look like there is one or have a near-term action that might answer that
>> >> question more definitively.
>> >>
>> >> I'd still say this is OK to release, myself, though this ought to be
>> filed
>> >> and marked for 0.6 as you've done.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We're at +2 now, and past 72 hours. It's release time, so, would be
>> great to
>> >> get votes now to gauge opinion on whether this should be published or
>> not.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Jeff Eastman <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Well, the bug is *surfaced* by an example calling the
>> SpectralKMeansDriver,
>> >>> which is in Mahout core, using arguments which have worked in the past.
>> I'd
>> >>> like to get Shannon's reaction before I decide if this is a show
>> stopper or
>> >>> not. I did mark it as fix in 0.6, and I doubt we have a lot of users
>> yet
>> >>> with the spectral clustering, so I'm on the fence.
>> >>>
>> >>> Shannon?
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[email protected]]
>> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:05 AM
>> >>> To: [email protected]
>> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Mahout 0.5, take 2
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm hoping to take a look tonight, but agree the bug isn't a show
>> stopper.
>> >>> +0 as of now, hopefully a +1 by the end of the day.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On May 26, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Me too. +1
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>> (FWIW I vote +1 for the release in spite of the bug in an example
>> found
>> >>> by
>> >>>>> Jeff.)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemahout-001/org/apache/mahout/
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Enjoy!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------
>> > Grant Ingersoll
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --------------------------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll
>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to