Hi I have updated the artifacts, so we can continue the vote. Please put the vote on the mail with subject:
[VOTE] release of Apache MyFaces 2.1.9 [VOTE] release of Apache MyFaces 2.0.15 regards, Leonardo Uribe 2012/9/11 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]>: > Hi > > It seems that one is the only artifact that does not have the update. > All other source files installed in nexus repository are ok. Maybe it > was because the assembly files were compiled before the final > sources-release.zip file, so the old one was used. > > I'll rebuild everything everything again and send another vote mail. > Thanks for notice it. > > regards, > > Leonardo > > 2012/9/11 Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]>: >> So I finally thought to look at the dates of the files inside of the >> the Sep 10th myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip file. >> They are all from >> Sep 4th, so the problem does appear to be that this piece wasn't >> rebuilt in your last release. This is probably why the license files >> are still missing. >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Leonardo, >>> >>> Rat is still complaining about the same 7 licensing issues. >>> >>> However, only certain instances of these files appear to be missing >>> licenses. >>> >>> myfaces-core-2.1.9-src> find . -name _ExtLang.js -exec ls -1 {} \; >>> >>> .This one has the license header. It comes from >>> myfaces-api-2.1.9-sources.jar inside of >>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz >>> >>> exists -- >>> ./src/META-INF/internal-resources/org.apache.myfaces.core.impl.util/_ExtLang.js >>> >>> >>> The following two are identical. The first one is the one rat flags >>> as needing a header. I guess that's because it's the "source" >>> version of all the rest of them. It comes from >>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip inside of >>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz. Maybe this file also needs >>> to be fixed in svn? I was not able to determine where this file comes >>> from in SVN. You had said that module was essentially a snapshot of >>> SVN. Maybe this snapshot did not get updated because we reused the >>> version number? >>> >>> missing -- >>> ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js >>> >>> missing -- >>> ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/target/classes/META-INF/internal-resources/org.apache.myfaces.core.impl.util/_ExtLang.js >>> >>> [........ The rest of this email can likely be ignored....] >>> >>> The following two are the compressed-down versions with no extra >>> whitespace or comments, which is what you would expect: >>> >>> missing -- >>> ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/target/classes/META-INF/internal-resources/javax.faces/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js >>> >>> missing -- >>> ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/target/classes/META-INF/resources/myfaces/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I have double and triple-checked to insure that I have a new >>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz download, and all of the files >>> inside it were built on Sep 10, 8-to-10pm EST, which is right before >>> the email you sent out. >>> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 mkienenb users 8119569 Sep 10 21:31 >>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 mkienenb users 8119322 Sep 10 21:30 >>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.zip >>> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 mkienenb users 900906 Sep 10 20:24 >>> myfaces-api-2.1.9-sources.jar >>> drwxrwxr-x 12 mkienenb users 4096 Sep 11 21:50 myfaces-core-module-2.1.9 >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 mkienenb users 5863230 Sep 10 20:24 >>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 mkienenb users 1809659 Sep 10 20:24 >>> myfaces-impl-2.1.9-sources.jar >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 mkienenb users 423440 Sep 10 20:24 >>> myfaces-impl-shared-2.1.9-sources.jar >>> \ >>> >>> >>> >>> Unapproved licenses: >>> >>> >>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_EvalHandlers.js >>> >>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_RuntimeQuirks.js >>> >>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/xhrCore/engine/BaseRequest.js >>> >>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_DomExperimental.js >>> >>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js >>> >>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/dojo-LICENSE.TXT >>> >>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I have fixed the files with missing licenses, included a fix for >>>> MYFACES-3605, so I'll send another vote over the new artifacts soon. >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> >>>> Leonardo Uribe >>>> >>>> 2012/9/7 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]>: >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> 2012/9/7 Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]>: >>>>>> [X] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released: >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks like we have 5 files missing licensing information. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 7 Unknown Licenses >>>>>> >>>>>> ******************************* >>>>>> >>>>>> Unapproved licenses: >>>>>> >>>>>> The five files below appear to be missing any kind of licensing >>>>>> information. The rest of the files in this directory have licensing >>>>>> information. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_EvalHandlers.js >>>>>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_RuntimeQuirks.js >>>>>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/xhrCore/engine/BaseRequest.js >>>>>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_DomExperimental.js >>>>>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It seems to be related to some refactoring into our code base. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/dojo-LICENSE.TXT >>>>>> >>>>>> "New" BSD or AFL 2.1. Bsd is approved, so maybe just add to exclude >>>>>> list. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> APL 2, but unusual format? -- add to exclude list? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>> >>>>> Leonardo Uribe >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Below is the link describing what we need to do to add files to an >>>>>> exclude list. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jackrabbit-dev/200907.mbox/%[email protected]%3E >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Thanks! Not sure how I missed that one. Withdrawing my vote. I'll >>>>>>> let you know how it turns out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This artifact: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemyfaces-034/org/apache/myfaces/core/myfaces-core-module/2.1.9/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is the one that allows to build it using maven. In practice, it is a >>>>>>>> copy of the sources from the svn. This artifact is included also in: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemyfaces-034/org/apache/myfaces/core/myfaces-core-assembly/2.1.9/myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.zip >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Build it is quite simple: unpack and mvn install. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Leonardo Uribe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2012/9/6 Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>> So I'm doing the work to vote for a release -- something I haven't >>>>>>>>> participated in in a very long time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Leonardo's key in KEYS - check >>>>>>>>> .jar.md5 matches - check >>>>>>>>> .jar.asc.md5 matches - check >>>>>>>>> .jar.sha1 matches -check >>>>>>>>> .jar.asc.sha1 matches -check >>>>>>>>> .asc files mat >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Includes source - check >>>>>>>>> Source builds -- Not seeing any kind of build system or build >>>>>>>>> instructions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Checking our web site only shows how to build from an svn checkout. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Did we somehow lose the ability to build from our released source when >>>>>>>>> we switched to maven? >>>>>>>>> Because unless something has changed this is a big deal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what >>>>>>>>> ==================== >>>>>>>>> What Must Every ASF Release Contain? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Every ASF release *must* contain a source package, which must be >>>>>>>>> sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they have >>>>>>>>> access to the appropriate platform and tools. >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> What are the ASF requirements on approving a release? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...] Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed >>>>>>>>> source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting >>>>>>>>> executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the >>>>>>>>> package contains the required contents. >>>>>>>>> ==================== >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We hit this issue in Cayenne a couple years back and had to do some >>>>>>>>> work to fix it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/thread/njray5dbazwcdcts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The natural inclination is to argue about it and try to say it's not >>>>>>>>> required. One can read through lots of threads on that if you really >>>>>>>>> want to satisfy that need. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But it all comes down to the fact that our "open source" releases need >>>>>>>>> to be something that someone can modify and build. And right now, >>>>>>>>> that isn't doable. Source control systems come and go. The ASF >>>>>>>>> might disappear next year. Or you might just be some poor guy who, >>>>>>>>> five years from now, has to work on a project I wrote to fix some >>>>>>>>> minor bug and find that the particular branch for Myfaces 2.1.9 >>>>>>>>> accidentally got corrupted. The reasons for why it is done this way >>>>>>>>> are numerous and worthwhile. But even if that doesn't sell you on >>>>>>>>> it, in the end it comes down to being a requirement of a release, >>>>>>>>> whether or not you agree with it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/201008.mbox/%[email protected]%3E >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/201008.mbox/%[email protected]%3E >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/201008.mbox/%[email protected]%3E >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But don't just take my word on it, read through the 123 messages on >>>>>>>>> the legal discuss thread :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/thread/njray5dbazwcdcts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So at least for now, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [X] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be >>>>>>>>> released: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Release cannot be built and tested from source.
