Go for it. I committed the license header fix-ups.... Not sure myself what the exact wording is that should go in the NOTICE.txt but I know it is wrong... Therefore AIUI that is a blocker for the PMC permitting the release as is...
In any case if the rest of the PMC do not see it as a blocker might as well get the package-info.java in place for the next alpha or the RC On Tuesday, 28 May 2013, Robert Scholte wrote: > One small comment regarding the packaging.html files: > > IMO any package.html under src/main/java should be replaced > package-info.java, because it doesn't make sense to have html-files between > the java-sources. > > Robert > > Op Tue, 28 May 2013 10:38:07 +0200 schreef Stephen Connolly < > [email protected]>: > > [x] Builds from source bundle > [x] Builds some complex projects > [x] Contains correct LICENSE.txt > [ ] NOTICE.txt correctly attributes 3rd party components (See observation > 1) > [?] All source files, where appropriate, contain the ASL header (See > observation 2) > [?] Binary archives bundled within the source distribution (See observation > 3) > > On the basis of the NOTICE.txt not acknowledging Eclipse Aether, and only > on that basis I will be voting > > -0.99999 (binding) > > The other issues are non-critical but it would be nice to tidy them up... > nice to have. > > Observations > > 1. No attribution of Eclipse Aether, only referenced as developed by > Sonatype. > > 2. The following 39 files are missing license headers: > > apache-maven/src/bin/m2.conf > apache-maven/src/conf/logging/**simplelogger.properties > > maven-aether-provider/src/**main/java/org/apache/maven/** > repository/internal/package.**html > maven-aether-provider/src/**site/apt/index.apt > maven-artifact/src/site/apt/**index.apt > maven-compat/compatibility.cfl > maven-compat/src/main/**resources/META-INF/maven/**plugin.xml > maven-core/lifecycle-executor.**txt > maven-core/plugin-manager.txt > maven-core/project-builder.txt > maven-core/src/main/resources/**org/apache/maven/messages/** > build.properties > maven-core/src/site/apt/**artifact-handlers.apt > maven-core/src/site/apt/**configuration-management.apt > maven-core/src/site/apt/**default-bindings.apt.vm > maven-core/src/site/apt/**getting-to-container-**configured-mojos.apt > maven-core/src/site/apt/index.**apt > maven-core/src/site/apt/**inheritance.apt > maven-core/src/site/apt/**lifecycles.apt.vm > maven-core/src/site/apt/**offline-mode.apt > maven-core/src/site/apt/**plugin-execution-isolation.apt > maven-core/src/site/apt/**scripting-support/marmalade-**support.apt > maven-core/src/site/resources/**design/2.1-lifecycle-refactor.**graffle > > maven-embedder/src/examples/**simple-project/src/main/java/** > org/apache/maven/embedder/App.**java > > maven-embedder/src/examples/**simple-project/src/test/java/** > org/apache/maven/embedder/**AppTest.java > maven-embedder/src/main/**resources/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF > > maven-embedder/src/main/**resources/META-INF/maven/** > slf4j-configuration.properties > maven-embedder/src/site/apt/**cli.apt.vm > maven-embedder/src/site/apt/**index.apt.vm > maven-embedder/src/site/apt/**logging.apt > maven-model-builder/src/site/**apt/index.apt > maven-model-builder/src/site/**apt/super-pom.apt.vm > maven-model/src/main/java/org/**apache/maven/model/io/xpp3/** > package.html > maven-model/src/main/java/org/**apache/maven/model/merge/**package.html > maven-model/src/main/java/org/**apache/maven/model/package.**html > maven-model/src/site/apt/**index.apt > maven-plugin-api/src/site/apt/**index.apt > maven-repository-metadata/src/**site/apt/index.apt > maven-settings/src/site/apt/**index.apt > README.bootstrap.txt > > None of these are actual production code, so I don't see this as a blocker > for release, but it would be good to tidy them up. Additionally, the > embedder examples should have their license explicitly stated to remove > confusion for anyone pegging the examples to build their own code upon. > > In addition I note that there are 432 test resources that do not have a > license header, however, as test resources it is legitimate to argue that > the license header could affect the test. It would be good if we could get > that number reduced, but only if we are confident that we are not > introducing false test passes in the process. > > 3. There is one (non-test) archive bundled within the distribution: > > maven-ant-tasks-2.1.1.jar > > Given that this specific artifact suffers from the bootstrap issue (i.e. it > needs Maven to build it) and the source is available and this artifact is > not part of the built code, but rather the build process, I am unclear as > to what the legal requirement for including this in the source > distribution. It would be nice if we had some clarity on the artifact. OTOH > it is code under the ASL and the NOTICE.txt perhaps covers it. > > > On 25 May 2013 13:51, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> wrote: > > -- Sent from my phone
