Also, I will take a stab at correcting our LICENSE and NOTICE files and issue a PR accordingly.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Ellison Anne Williams < [email protected]> wrote: > Me too - when I just checked out a clean copy of 0.1.0 and ran: > > mvn clean > > mvn release:prepare -Psigned_release -Darguments="-DskipTests" > -DdryRun=true > > and take a look at apache-pirk-0.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT-sources.jar, I > only have org/apache/pirk/* > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Suneel Marthi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I just checked, and don't see that 😷 >> >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Ellison Anne Williams < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hmmm... I didn't see them last night - will double check >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > 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 >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
