On 16/08/16 13:06, Suneel Marthi wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 15/08/16 23:36, Suneel Marthi wrote: >>> To test this PR locally , perform a dry-run of mvn -Psigned_release >>> release:prepare >>> >>> Verify target/apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating-sources.jar >>> >>> and target/apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating.jar >> >> I trust you Suneel :-) Unless you want some separate testing, I'll wait >> for the new artefacts to be created and do the full review again. >> > > I would appreciate if u could verify this fix now as opposed to waiting for > the new artifacts, always helps to have another pair of eyes. > > Thanks again Tim.
So I checked out the 0.1.0 stream and ran mvn -Psigned_release release:prepare -DdryRun=true <blah/> [INFO] Release preparation simulation complete. [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INFO] BUILD SUCCESS [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INFO] Total time: 05:38 min [INFO] Finished at: 2016-08-16T13:34:55+01:00 [INFO] Final Memory: 15M/448M [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ and in the newly created apache-pirk-0.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT-sources.jar I still see files in there /org/openjdk/jmh/infra/generated/* I wasn't expecting that. Regards, Tim >>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Suneel Marthi <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I fixed issues 5 and 6 below. >>>> >>>> I had to override <maven-source-plugin> which was being inherited from >>>> parent POM. >>>> >>>> For 6, the test material u r seeing is from src/test not from test/. We >>>> should consider moving those to test/ for the next release, otherwise I >>>> don't think its a blocker for this release. >>>> >>>> Will be pushing a PR soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14/08/16 04:19, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the vote for release 0.1.0 of Apache Pirk (incubating). >>>>>> >>>>>> The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on >>>>> Wednesday >>>>>> , >>>>>> August 16, 2016. >>>>>> >>>>>> The artifacts can be downloaded here: https://repository.apache. >>>>>> org/content/repositories/orgapachepirk-1001/org/apache/ >>>>>> pirk/apache-pirk/0.1.0-incubating/ >>>>>> >>>>>> All JIRAs completed for this release are tagged with 'FixVersion = >>>>> 0.1.0'. >>>>>> You can view them here: https://issues.apache.org/jira >>>>> /browse/PIRK-47?jql= >>>>>> project%20%3D%20PIRK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D0.1.0 >>>>>> >>>>>> The artifacts have been signed with Key : 1FD8849B >>>>>> >>>>>> Please vote accordingly: >>>>>> >>>>>> [ ] +1, accept RC as the official 0.1.0 release >>>>>> [ ] +0, I don't care either way, >>>>>> [ ] -1, do not accept RC as the official 0.1.0 release because... >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Ellison Anne >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wow, you guys have had a busy weekend. >>>>> >>>>> Looking at the files in that directory... >>>>> >>>>> (1) Principal release artefact: >>>>> apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating-source-release.zip >>>>> - sig & sums check ok. >>>>> - EAW's pub key is in LDAP, KEYS file, etc. >>>>> - build and test ok on Oracle Java 8b91, RHEL6. >>>>> - Notice, License files ok. >>>>> - RAT checks pass. >>>>> >>>>> (2) JavaDocs: >>>>> apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating-javadoc.jar >>>>> - sig and sums check ok. >>>>> - Notice and Licence files ok (in META-INF/). >>>>> - JavaDocs render ok. >>>>> >>>>> (3) Maven pom file: >>>>> - sig and sums check ok. >>>>> - references to license and notices ok. >>>>> - not checked building with it, but oking >>>>> as minimal diff with project pom. >>>>> >>>>> (4) Dependency combined binary convenience: >>>>> apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating-exe.jar >>>>> - sig and sums check ok. >>>>> - not tested >>>>> ** notices and license files confusion. >>>>> ** not passing on notices for included dependencies. >>>>> >>>>> jar contains >>>>> /LICENSE-junit.txt >>>>> JUnit license >>>>> /LICENSE.txt >>>>> BSD license (from Hamcrest) >>>>> /license/* >>>>> contains ALv2, and other license and NOTICE file for XML APIs. >>>>> /META-INF/LICENSE >>>>> ALv2 >>>>> /META-INF/LICENSE.txt >>>>> ALv2 (with reference to org.apache.commons.math3.ml.neuralnet) >>>>> /META-INF/license/* >>>>> licenses for a variety of dependencies, including >>>>> LICENSE.jboss-logging.txt -> LGPLv2 >>>>> /META-INF/NOTICE >>>>> Pirk (only) notice file. >>>>> /META-INF/NOTICE.txt >>>>> Commons Math notice file. >>>>> >>>>> (5) Pirk-only Source JAR >>>>> apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating-sources.jar >>>>> - sig and sums check ok. >>>>> - Notice and Licence files ok (in META-INF/). >>>>> - Contains JMH generated source code >>>>> org.apache.pirk.benchmark.generated.* >>>>> org.openjdk.jmh.infra.generated.* >>>>> ** Are we clear on the license for these files? >>>>> ** Fails RAT checks due to unspecified licenses on these files. >>>>> - Not tried compiling / further testing. >>>>> >>>>> (6) Pirk-only Binary JAR >>>>> apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating.jar >>>>> - sig and sums check ok. >>>>> - Notice and Licence files ok (in META-INF/). >>>>> - FYI contains an empty directory (/org/openjdk/). >>>>> - FYI contains a subset of test material. >>>>> - No further testing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have to vote -1 (binding) on these artefacts due to the issues >>>>> identified in (4) and possibly (5). >>>>> >>>>> Notably: >>>>> (i) we indicate there is LGPLv2.1 material in this release. If true >>>>> this is contrary to ASF's policy [1], if not then the license text >>>>> should be removed. >>>>> >>>>> (ii) we are not passing through the required NOTICES for Pirk's >>>>> dependencies as required by their terms. >>>>> >>>>> Pirk's transitive JAR has deep dependencies, so if we are >> redistributing >>>>> them we must include their notice files too. Our JAR has a number of >>>>> NOTICE files, but they are not comprehensive. Better to have a single >>>>> complete NOTICE file, e.g. [2]. >>>>> >>>>> (iii) we should clarify the licence of generated JMH files, and >> exclude >>>>> them for the RAT check or remove them from the artefacts as required. >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x >>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> p.s. I appreciate that (4) is potentially a significant effort to >>>>> resolve, but the convenience JAR is not essential to a release, so we >>>>> may consider dropping that from the release artefacts this time round. >>>>> Just a thought. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
