This should be taken care of at this point for both 2.0.x and 2.1.x. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3608
Because of all of the incomplete releases, I marked it as resolved/not-closed against 2.1.9-snapshot, 2.0.15-snapshot. Hope that was the right setting. I'm not certain if we should be excluding impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/context/nestedScriptCDATA.xml, but I wasn't sure if I'd break something if I did add a license. People using eclipse may have some additional failures (I did): api/maven-eclipse.xml api/.externalToolBuilders/Maven_Ant_Builder.launch but that's not something we need to deal with for this release. On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
