On 16 August 2013 14:27, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 August 2013 13:44, Stephen Connolly
> <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > r1514680
> >
> > Does that, coupled with the knowledge that our source release bundles are
> > *supposed to* include the tag details that they were built from resolve
> > your issue?
>
> Sorry, but no.
>
> As I see it, release votes should be independent of the tooling and
> project layout etc.
>
>
Well we will just have to agree to disagree.
Release votes depend on the requirements and precedents set down by the PMC
that governs the project making those releases.
If you were arguing that we need to put a page up with information for
reviewers detailing how they can find the stuff, that is an argument that
we can debate, but the Maven PMC has mandated that all our releases will be
made with the Maven Release Plugin and that we follow certain conventions.
You had a valid point on the checksum of the source release, and we
addressed that. You have yet to convince me that you have any further valid
points
> What's important is that the source release can be demonstrated to be
> derived entirely from "approved" sources.
>
> So any ASF vote email should contain:
>
> + Pointer to the "approved" original source files, i.e. unique SCM
> coordinates
>
If we have the hash of the source archive(s) and the link to the source
archive and the source archive contains the information about from where it
came then there is no need to add boilerplate to our process or template.
Respectfully on this one my answer is: No it need not contain that
information where it can be uniquely determined from the other information
provided in the vote email.
>
> + Pointer to the release candidate source archive(s), plus hash(es) to
> make the instance unique and traceable
>
Added to the email template in r1514680
>
> + Pointer to the KEYS file so sigs can be checked.
>
These are at a project defined well known location. No need to repeat
>
> + Pointers to binary (and javadoc) archives, if any.
> These are not part of a formal ASF release, but if they are provided
> then their N&L files must be present and correct.
>
Pointing to the staging repository is perfectly acceptable.
>
> Reviewers should not be required to understand the release tooling or
> even how to build or test the application.
>
Your opinion. You have not shown me an ASF directive that indicates your
opinion as being correct. In the absence of such, this project's PMC gets
to decide, and we have decided that you do need to know about how the Maven
Release Plugin works and how our Staging of releases works on the ASF Maven
repository
> These are not necessary for the the parts of the review which only
> look at provenance and licensing.
>
> Of course the PMC does have an interest in additional aspects of the
> release, such as documentation, does it build and test OK.
> For those parts of the review of course more detailed knowledge of the
> project is needed.
>
> For the requirements of ASF releases, a reviewer only needs to know how to:
> - obtain the "approved" source files
> - inspect the release candidate archives so the contents can be
> checked and compared as necessary.
> - check sigs and hashes
>
> > (Obviously there is more tooling we can add... for instance I suspect
> that
> > for GIT we are not including the git hash that release:perform is running
> > from... which is something I think we can address)
> >
> >
> > On 16 August 2013 13:17, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 August 2013 13:08, Fred Cooke <fred.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > They're deployed as a set, so what I want is the SHA1 or even MD5 of
> any
> >> > one of the set of uploaded files, such that I can confirm that the
> set is
> >> > the set that I am supposed to be looking at. I don't see importance in
> >> > which, but I've not thought about it much. I think *all* would be huge
> >> > overkill.
> >>
> >> It's only really needed for source archives, which are the ones being
> >> officially voted on.
> >>
> >> This is something I've long thought is necessary to be able to tie the
> >> vote mail to the artifacts.
> >>
> >> And it could be very useful to have the hash in the mail archive.
> >>
> >> > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> >> > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> That sounds like you are looking for the SHA1 sum of the source
> bundle
> >> to
> >> >> be included in the vote email. Which would seem perfectly reasonable
> to
> >> me.
> >>
> >> Yes please!
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 16 August 2013 12:31, Fred Cooke <fred.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Dennis, of course source bundles will contain URLs and hashes and
> >> >> revisions
> >> >> > and so forth, and the chance of those being mismatched is
> >> approximately
> >> >> > zero. That's not the point.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The point (for me, at least) is what did you INTEND to release, and
> >> does
> >> >> > THAT match what is actually found in the bundle (including URLs and
> >> >> hashes
> >> >> > etc matching).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Releasing is a fundamentally human process that consists of "is
> this
> >> >> > ready?" and "pull trigger". Some binaries and bundles end up on
> >> server of
> >> >> > some type somewhere. I want to know the checksum of one of the set
> of
> >> >> items
> >> >> > (so I KNOW (not guess) that I'm looking at what you want me to),
> and I
> >> >> want
> >> >> > to know what SCM or tarball+patchset you think you released it
> from.
> >> This
> >> >> > is human information that can't be automated. The bundle someone
> goes
> >> and
> >> >> > finds could have anything in it, and they won't know if it's what
> you
> >> >> > wanted it to have in it, or not.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Fred.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Dennis Lundberg <
> denn...@apache.org
> >> >> > >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:24 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > On 16 August 2013 09:32, Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >> On 16 August 2013 08:10, Dennis Lundberg <
> denn...@apache.org>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> On 15 August 2013 20:57, Dennis Lundberg <
> >> denn...@apache.org>
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> >> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM, sebb <
> seb...@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> On 15 August 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl <
> ja...@tesla.io>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > What Sebb is doing is perfectly reasonable.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> > I agree. Checking that the source bundle is correct is
> >> good
> >> >> > > release
> >> >> > > > >> >> review
> >> >> > > > >> >> > practice.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> > Thank you!
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > He's trying to assert that everything in the source
> >> ball
> >> >> > > > actually
> >> >> > > > >> >> comes
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> from source control and that no errant files have made
> >> their
> >> >> > way
> >> >> > > > into
> >> >> > > > >> >> the
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> distribution. Right now we cannot assert that the
> >> assembly
> >> >> > > plugin
> >> >> > > > has
> >> >> > > > >> >> not
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> wandered outside the checkout and pulled something
> else
> >> in,
> >> >> or
> >> >> > > > that
> >> >> > > > >> >> someone
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> didn't accidentally put something else in the
> >> distribution.
> >> >> I
> >> >> > > > think
> >> >> > > > >> this
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> unlikely but we can't assert otherwise right now
> which I
> >> >> > believe
> >> >> > > > is
> >> >> > > > >> >> Sebb's
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> point.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> It *has* already happened several times that I am
> aware
> >> of.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> The last few releases of the War plugin (various RMs &
> >> >> voters)
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> included at least one spurious file.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> So it was not just a one-off packaging - and review -
> >> >> failure.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> [See separate thread(s) for all the details; they are
> not
> >> >> > > germane
> >> >> > > > >> here.]
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> The message is that mistakes happen even in automated
> >> >> > processes.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Which is why independent comparison of input and
> output
> >> is
> >> >> > > > valuable.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > If we can embed the revision from which the assembly
> >> was
> >> >> > made
> >> >> > > in
> >> >> > > > >> the
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> assembly itself (and maybe the build number plugin is
> >> doing
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > > > >> >> already),
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> then a tool can be made to unpack the assembly,
> checkout
> >> the
> >> >> > > > revision
> >> >> > > > >> >> and
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> assert that everything in the source distribution
> comes
> >> from
> >> >> > > > source
> >> >> > > > >> >> control.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > If we can also assert that as part of each build all
> >> the
> >> >> > > license
> >> >> > > > >> files
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> are intact and headers are in place then I believe
> we're
> >> >> done
> >> >> > > with
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> provenance.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Licenses are present, all files have valid license
> >> >> headers,
> >> >> > > all
> >> >> > > > >> files
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> present in the source distribution come from source
> >> control,
> >> >> > all
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> contributions to source control are from bonafide CLA
> >> >> carrying
> >> >> > > > Apache
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> committers because you don't get access to commit
> until
> >> the
> >> >> > CLA
> >> >> > > > is on
> >> >> > > > >> >> file.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Sebb, reasonably accurate?
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Yes.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> One other point I made already is that I think the
> vote
> >> >> e-mail
> >> >> > > > needs
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> to be transparent to all, not just those on the PMC.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Links to the output from the release process are
> >> obviously
> >> >> > > > already in
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> the mail; what is missing is the input to the process,
> >> e.g..
> >> >> > SCM
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> coords.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Yes, it may be possible to dig out the details from
> the
> >> >> > archive,
> >> >> > > > but
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> that's not trivial.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> > I disagree.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> > If we focus first on a "normal" release, one that
> >> succeeds on
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > > > >> first
> >> >> > > > >> >> > attempt, without a respin or deleting of tags.
> >> >> > > > >> >> > To check provenance you would do this:
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> > 1. download the source bundle
> >> >> > > > >> >> > 2. unpack the source bundle
> >> >> > > > >> >> > 3. checkout the corresponding source code from the SCM
> >> >> > > > >> >> > 4. compare the two trees
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> > Right so far?
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> > What you want, if I understand you correctly, is to
> have
> >> the
> >> >> > SCM
> >> >> > > > URL
> >> >> > > > >> in
> >> >> > > > >> >> the
> >> >> > > > >> >> > vote email. So that you can give that to your SCM
> client
> >> in
> >> >> > step
> >> >> > > 3.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> Yes.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> > With the process we use here at the Maven project, the
> SCM
> >> >> URL
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > > > in
> >> >> > > > >> the
> >> >> > > > >> >> > pom.xml file that sits in the root directory of the
> >> unpacked
> >> >> > > source
> >> >> > > > >> >> bundle.
> >> >> > > > >> >> > All you need to do is open the file and copy the URL
> from
> >> >> > there.
> >> >> > > I
> >> >> > > > >> still
> >> >> > > > >> >> > fail to see how that is so much harder than to copy the
> >> URL
> >> >> > from
> >> >> > > an
> >> >> > > > >> >> email.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> > That is if you don't know the conventions that we use,
> by
> >> way
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> > > > >> >> > Release Plugin. The tag will always be in the format
> >> >> > > > >> >> > ${project.artifactId}-${project.version}
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> My point is that it should be completely transparent,
> even
> >> to
> >> >> > > outside
> >> >> > > > >> >> reviewers.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> > I guess that this is the point that we'll have to agree to
> >> >> > disagree
> >> >> > > > on.
> >> >> > > > >> My
> >> >> > > > >> > view is that if someone wants to to review a release from
> the
> >> >> > Maven
> >> >> > > > >> > project, they'd have to have a basic understanding of how
> >> Maven
> >> >> > > works
> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> > > > >> > how we do releases in the Maven project. That includes
> what
> >> the
> >> >> > > > Release
> >> >> > > > >> > Plugin is and how it works.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> Why does the release tool matter?
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > It is not the tool itself that matters, but rather what the
> >> tools
> >> >> > does.
> >> >> > > > > Since the Release plugin automates a lot of the tasks
> involved
> >> when
> >> >> > > > doing a
> >> >> > > > > release, it can appear to make things less transparent.
> >> Therefor a
> >> >> > > > > knowledge about what it does is needed to make it
> transparent.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > That really is not the point.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > It's possible to create the same outputs from the same inputs
> >> using
> >> >> > > > all sorts of methods, manual or automated.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > The fact that it is a Maven release should not matter as far as
> >> the
> >> >> > > > source checking is concerned, except insofar as the staging
> area
> >> may
> >> >> > > > be different.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Only the source release archives matter.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > All of what you say above is true, but that is not what I'm
> talking
> >> >> > about.
> >> >> > > My focus is still on the 2.5 bullet in the process of
> *reviewing* a
> >> >> > source
> >> >> > > release, not it's creation.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > You want the SCM URL in the vote email. I'm arguing that that
> piece
> >> of
> >> >> > > information is already available to you in the source bundle, so
> >> there
> >> >> is
> >> >> > > not point in including it in the vote email. Knowing *what* the
> >> Release
> >> >> > > Plugin does makes you aware of this fact.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > It's still an ASF release.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > Yes, and we must adhere to all the requirements of an ASF
> >> release.
> >> >> > > There
> >> >> > > > > are however a lot of different ways to make an ASF compliant
> >> >> release.
> >> >> > > > Each
> >> >> > > > > PMC decides on a process for that, that works best for them.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > That's fine, the tool and process does not matter so long as
> the
> >> >> > > > output is correct.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > It should not matter how the source release artifacts are
> >> >> generated.
> >> >> > > > >> The process of checking them is still the same.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> Of course if things go wrong, then it's important to know
> how
> >> the
> >> >> > SCM
> >> >> > > > >> input was assembled into the source archives in order to fix
> >> the
> >> >> > > > >> process.
> >> >> > > > >> But the release tool is completely irrelevant to the
> process of
> >> >> > > > >> checking the contents of the source archives.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > See above.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> > Most people have their own checklist of stuff they do when
> >> >> > > reviewing a
> >> >> > > > >> > release. Would it be a good idea if we aggregate all those
> >> >> points
> >> >> > > on a
> >> >> > > > >> page
> >> >> > > > >> > on the Maven web site, under the development section? That
> >> would
> >> >> > > also
> >> >> > > > >> serve
> >> >> > > > >> > as a guide for "outside reviewers".
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> Yes, though that is a separate issue.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > Agreed.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> > Now, for a respun release thing are trickier. Here it
> >> might
> >> >> be
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > > > good
> >> >> > > > >> >> idea
> >> >> > > > >> >> > to include the revision number or hash, or whatever is
> >> unique
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> > > > >> SCM
> >> >> > > > >> >> > being used.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> And how do you know from a vote e-mail that it is respun?
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> > It should always say so in the subject of the vote email.
> Not
> >> >> sure
> >> >> > > if
> >> >> > > > >> that
> >> >> > > > >> > is written down somewhere, but that's how we have always
> done
> >> >> it.
> >> >> > If
> >> >> > > > it's
> >> >> > > > >> > missing I'll add it to our release process document.
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> > Even though the code under review will always be under
> the
> >> >> > > > >> >> > latest tag in the above format (at least for
> Subversion).
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> Until the next respin.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> If there is a respin, and reviewers are not following the
> >> >> e-mails
> >> >> > > > very
> >> >> > > > >> >> carefully, it would be quite easy to overlook an updated
> >> tag.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> This is all about making sure that it is really obvious
> what
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > > vote is
> >> >> > > > >> >> about.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> > Yes, that's why I agreed that it's a good idea to add the
> >> >> > > > revision/hash
> >> >> > > > >> > when doing a respin.
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Publishing the SCM coordinates in the mail is trivial
> to
> >> do,
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > > > >> shows
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> that the input is an important part of the review
> >> process.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Having the information in the mail thread is also
> useful
> >> for
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > > > >> >> archives.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> > As others have said before, we aim to automate the
> release
> >> >> > > process
> >> >> > > > as
> >> >> > > > >> >> much
> >> >> > > > >> >> > as possible. Therefor even a seemingly minor addition
> >> will be
> >> >> > > > >> questioned,
> >> >> > > > >> >> > as you have noticed, before it is included in our
> process.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> > Can you explain why the information is useful for the
> >> >> archives?
> >> >> > > > I've
> >> >> > > > >> seen
> >> >> > > > >> >> > you mentioned that before. Isn't that moot once the
> >> release
> >> >> is
> >> >> > > > >> approved?
> >> >> > > > >> >> > The tag will be in Subversion for the forseable future
> and
> >> >> > noone
> >> >> > > > will
> >> >> > > > >> >> touch
> >> >> > > > >> >> > it. What am I missing?
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> Why would a release need to be revisited?
> >> >> > > > >> >> Perhaps someone is complaining that one of our releases
> >> >> contains
> >> >> > > code
> >> >> > > > >> >> it should not.
> >> >> > > > >> >> If that is the case, it helps to have the evidence of the
> >> >> release
> >> >> > > > vote
> >> >> > > > >> >> in plain sight.
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> > Sure it helps in those cases. But the evidence in our case
> >> is in
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> > > > >> > source bundle itself, which is even better in my opinion.
> >> There
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > > > have
> >> >> > > > >> > the tag in the POM file.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> However, the link to the staging repo is temporary.
> >> >> > > > >> Once the repo is published, the staging repo is deleted and
> >> there
> >> >> is
> >> >> > > > >> no direct route to the pom from the vote e-mail.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > Once the staging repo is promoted, its content is moved to
> the
> >> real
> >> >> > > > > repository. So the source bundle is available there for
> anyone
> >> who
> >> >> > > wants
> >> >> > > > to
> >> >> > > > > track down the complete contents of a previous release.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > However that is not the canonical location for source releases;
> >> >> source
> >> >> > > > releases MUST be released via the ASF mirror system.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > So, go download it from the mirror system then. I fail to see how
> >> that
> >> >> is
> >> >> > > relevant to this discussion.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > Again this is where a bit of knowledge of what the Release
> >> Plugin
> >> >> > does
> >> >> > > > > helps you. A release done with the Release Plugin will
> always be
> >> >> > > > available
> >> >> > > > > at
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/${project.groupId}/${project.artifactId}/${project.version}/${project.artifactId}-${project.version}-source-release.zip
> >> >> > > > > where project.groupId has had '.' replaced by '/'.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > AIUI the name is not controlled by the Release Plugin.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > The first part of the name is determined by Maven Convention
> and
> >> ASF
> >> >> > > > hosting.
> >> >> > > > The -source-release.zip suffix depends on settings outside the
> >> >> Release
> >> >> > > > plugin.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Apache Commons sometimes uses the Release Plugin, but our
> archives
> >> >> are
> >> >> > > > called -src.zip and -src.tar.gz
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Okay, I'll rephrase that:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Again this is where a bit of knowledge of what the Release Plugin
> >> does
> >> >> > > *during a release from the Apache Maven project* does help you.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Is that clear enough?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >> > Note that I'm not talking about respins here, that's
> another
> >> >> > story.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > On Aug 15, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Chris Graham <
> >> >> > > chrisgw...@gmail.com
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> On 15/08/2013, at 10:05 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> On 15 August 2013 10:08, Chris Graham <
> >> >> > chrisgw...@gmail.com
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > >> wrote:
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>> What sebb does not appear to have understood or
> >> >> accepted,
> >> >> > > as
> >> >> > > > >> >> Stephen
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> has
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>> endlessly pointed out, is that we vote on the
> source
> >> >> > > bundle,
> >> >> > > > >> not a
> >> >> > > > >> >> scm
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>> revision, and that, strictly speaking a SCM is
> not
> >> even
> >> >> > > > required
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> (however
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>> sensible it is to use one).
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>> He wants a tree and a revision so that we can
> >> compare
> >> >> > > between
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> releases,
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>> where what he should be doing, strictly
> speaking, is
> >> >> > > > comparing
> >> >> > > > >> >> source
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> tar
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>> balls, as that is what we really are voting on.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> I agree that what is released (and voted on) are
> the
> >> >> > source
> >> >> > > > >> >> tarballs.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> And any such tarballs should be identical (barring
> >> >> > possibly
> >> >> > > > >> >> different
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> EOL settings for text files).
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> However, that is only one of the checks that need
> to
> >> be
> >> >> > > made.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> The PMC also needs to ensure that the files are
> being
> >> >> > > released
> >> >> > > > >> under
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> the correct license.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> Are not the licenses in the source that is in the
> >> source
> >> >> > > > tarball?
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> If so, can not the rat plugin or similar be used to
> >> check
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> compliance?
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> I contend that the only practical way to check the
> >> >> > licences
> >> >> > > > is to
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> compare the source tarball(s) with the files in
> SCM.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> [The files should only be added to SCM if the
> >> license is
> >> >> > OK,
> >> >> > > > so
> >> >> > > > >> the
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> SCM tag acts as a database of validated source
> >> files.]
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> The SVN revision / Git hash are needed to ensure
> >> >> > uniqueness.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> >> dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> >> > dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> >> dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Jason
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Jason van Zyl
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Founder, Apache Maven
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > There's no sense in being precise when you don't
> even
> >> know
> >> >> > > what
> >> >> > > > >> you're
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> talking about.
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > -- John von Neumann
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> --
> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Dennis Lundberg <dev-h...@maven.apache.org>
> >> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >> >> > > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >> >> --
> >> >> > > > >> >> Dennis Lundberg <dev-h...@maven.apache.org>
> >> >> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >> >> > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> --
> >> >> > > > >> Dennis Lundberg <dev-h...@maven.apache.org>
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > --
> >> >> > > > Dennis Lundberg <dev-h...@maven.apache.org>
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>
