I am fairly certain we have to license our test source. I'm not sure about test data, but it is probably easier to add a license than to research the topic since there was only one data file.
Here's what I determined after looking at each file. I am out of time for now, but I will try to add licenses for these over the weekend. # These files looks trivial -- I don't even know if they support comments. I would think we can exclude these. implee6/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/javax.servlet.ServletContainerInitializer impl/src/test/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider # Needs standard APL impl/src/test/java/org/apache/myfaces/config/annotation/ClassByteCodeAnnotationFilterTest.java impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/composite/testSimpleThisResourceReference.xhtml impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/lifecycle/view2.xhtml impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/lifecycle/view1.jsp impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-component.vm (in velocity comment style) impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-tag.vm (in velocity comment style) impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-web-config.vm (in velocity comment style) shared-public/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view2.xhtml shared-public/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view1.jsp shared/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view2.xhtml shared/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view1.jsp # not sure about this one, but probably needs license as it looks like source for generating files. impl/src/main/conf/META-INF/.standard-faces-config-base.xml.jsfdia # mostly empty file? Maybe stick license inside instead of dummy text? impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/composite/javax.faces/jsf.js impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/jsf/html/javax.faces/jsf.js impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/updateheadres/resources/javax.faces/jsf.js # not sure about this one. Looks like data, not source. Probably should put a license on it to be safe. impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/context/nestedScriptCDATA.xml # Is CDDL+GPL a compatible license? What are we using this for? The xsd files? I think that xsd files are fair game for inclusion. impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/glassfish-LICENSE.txt impl/src/main/resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/javaee_5.xsd impl/src/main/resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd # We can exclude this one impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > Do we require all licenses in place even for test files? I think the > related files does not require the license, because they are not code > at all. For example, the intention > META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider > is set the default lifecycle provider, so it only contains a > reference. > > Anyway, I'll do another try next week. > > regards, > > Leonardo Uribe > > 2012/9/13 Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]>: >> I still have to vote -1 until we have fixed the licenses for all files >> that need licenses. Licensing is one of the few absolute requirements >> for an approved release. >> >> I know that this vote is dying the death of a thousand cuts, but I am >> doing the best I can to identify as many problems at once. What has >> taken me several hours to identify this morning could have been done >> by someone knowledgeable with maven in a few minutes. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Ok, good to know that. Maybe we can enable rat on the next release. I >>> think we can continue with the release vote too. >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Leonardo >>> >>> 2012/9/13 Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]>: >>>> And here's what I did to come up with this list: >>>> >>>> mvn apache-rat:check -Drat.numUnapprovedLicenses=9999 >>>> >>>> ls -1 */target/rat.txt >>>> >>>> api/target/rat.txt >>>> bundle/target/rat.txt >>>> implee6/target/rat.txt >>>> impl/target/rat.txt >>>> parent/target/rat.txt >>>> shaded-impl/target/rat.txt >>>> shared-public/target/rat.txt >>>> shared/target/rat.txt >>>> >>>> and then went through that list of files by hand. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Due to my lack of maven experience, it's taken me awhile to figure out >>>>> how to configure apache rat so that I could get past the two license >>>>> exceptions in the api project. >>>>> >>>>> Here's the full list of unapproved files in the rest of the project: >>>>> >>>>> implee6/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/javax.servlet.ServletContainerInitializer >>>>> >>>>> impl/src/test/java/org/apache/myfaces/config/annotation/ClassByteCodeAnnotationFilterTest.java >>>>> impl/src/test/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider >>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/composite/testSimpleThisResourceReference.xhtml >>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/composite/javax.faces/jsf.js >>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/jsf/html/javax.faces/jsf.js >>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/updateheadres/resources/javax.faces/jsf.js >>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/lifecycle/view2.xhtml >>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/lifecycle/view1.jsp >>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/context/nestedScriptCDATA.xml >>>>> impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-component.vmimpl/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/glassfish-LICENSE.txt >>>>> impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt >>>>> impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider >>>>> impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-tag.vm >>>>> impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-web-config.vm >>>>> impl/src/main/resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/javaee_5.xsd >>>>> impl/src/main/resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd >>>>> impl/src/main/conf/META-INF/.standard-faces-config-base.xml.jsfdia >>>>> >>>>> shared-public/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view2.xhtml >>>>> shared-public/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view1.jsp >>>>> >>>>> shared/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view2.xhtml >>>>> shared/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view1.jsp >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Here is what needed to be added to the api/om.xml file in order to >>>>> skip the two files. From what I can tell, we probably should write >>>>> license rules for these files rather than exclude them, but that's not >>>>> a show-stopper. >>>>> >>>>> <plugin> >>>>> <groupId>org.apache.rat</groupId> >>>>> <artifactId>apache-rat-plugin</artifactId> >>>>> <configuration> >>>>> <excludes> >>>>> >>>>> <exclude>src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/dojo-LICENSE.TXT</exclude> >>>>> >>>>> <exclude>src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt</exclude> >>>>> </excludes> >>>>> </configuration> >>>>> </plugin> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> 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.
