+1
taverna-engine, taverna-common-activities, and taverna-commandline all build
successfully on my Windows 10 machine running Maven 3.3.9 and Java 1.8.0_91.
Add the following warnings to JIRA:
---------------------------------------
Warnings (other than Javadoc warnings) - Individual JIRA issues
---------------------------------------
taverna-engine
- Workflow Model impl - private reference
- Reference Manager impl - unused package warning
- Activity archetype: missing plug-in warnings, empty jar warning,
and unresolved package dependency warnings
taverna-common-activities
- Common Activities: empty jar warning
taverna-commandline
- Command-line tool: empty jar warning
- Command-line tool Product: missing POMs
---------------------------------------
Detailed summary (including Javadoc warnings)
---------------------------------------
taverna-engine
- Engine and Platform: empty jar warning
- Reference Manager API: Javadoc warnings
- Observer pattern: Javadoc warnings
- Workflow Model API: Javadoc warnings
- Workflow Model Extension Points: Javadoc warnings
- Workflow Model impl: Javadoc warnings; private reference warning
[WARNING] Bundle org.apache.taverna.engine:taverna-workflowmodel-
impl:bundle:3.1.0-incubating :
Export org.apache.taverna.workflowmodel.impl, has 1, private
references
[org.apache.taverna.workflowmodel.processor.dispatch.impl],
- Reference Manager impl: Javadoc warnings; unused package warning
[WARNING] Bundle org.apache.taverna.engine:taverna-reference-
impl:bundle:3.1.0-incubating : Unused Import-Package instructions:
[org.springframework.orm.*]
- Activity archetype: missing plug-in warnings, empty jar warning,
and unresolved package dependency warnings
EXAMPLE 1: [INFO] [WARNING] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin is missing.
@ com.example:dummy-taverna-plugin:0.1.0-SNAPSHOT,
...\taverna-activity-archetype\target\test-classes\projects\
dummyActivity\project\dummy-taverna-plugin\pom.xml, line 22, column 12
EXAMPLE 2: [INFO] [WARNING] Bundle : org.springframework:
org.springframework.context:jar:3.0.5.RELEASE has unresolved package
dependencies: org.apache.commons.logging;version="[1.1.1,2.0.0)"
- Platform Capability API: Javadoc warnings
- Credential Manager API: Javadoc warnings
- Credential Manager impl: Javadoc warnings
- Platform Report Service: Javadoc warnings
- Platform Execution Service API: Javadoc warnings
- Platform Run Service API: Javadoc warnings
taverna-common-activities
- Common Activities: empty jar warning
- Beanshell Activity: Javadoc warnings
- External Tool Activity: Javadoc warnings
- REST Activity: Javadoc warnings
- Spreadsheet Import Activity: Javadoc warnings
- WSDL-generic Library: Javadoc warnings
- WSDL Activity: Javadoc warnings
taverna-commandline
- Command-line tool: empty jar warning
- Command-line tool Common: a few Javadoc warnings
- Command-line tool Product: missing POMs
EXAMPLE: [WARNING] Missing POM for org.springframework:org.
springframework.aop:jar:3.0.0.RC1
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:49 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 13 June 2016 at 10:04, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
> > One of the few issues that Taverna has before graduation is getting VOTEs
> > done. When a TLP, the future-PMC is going to have to be able to muster
> the
> > necessary 3 votes for a releases. The active PPMC of Taverna is looking
> > minimal.
> >
> > 1/ What about this vote?
>
> Thanks for raising this, Andy.
>
>
> I agree we need to be speedier on a VOTE - but I think it's fair that
> we have due review of the very first release of this particular code -
> e.g. we dropped a RC because of misleading copyright headers; which I
> think shows a functioning PMC.
>
>
> One thing I think is important is that we should not strive for code
> perfection, as a small project I am afraid we don't have that luxury.
> We should rather try to Release Early, Release Often.
>
>
> > 2/ How can the pool of active (P)PMC members be grown?
>
> We still need new members, but I think we also need to keep the
> existing PPMC members engaged.
>
> ASF processes come with.. well, some overhead. I guess that can be
> tiring sometimes.
>
>
> I know everyone is busy - perhaps the remaining part of the PPMC [1]
> could chip in on what we could do to get you to review/vote? :)
>
>
> Have we made the release process [2][3] too big? Or is it too much
> to review 3 artifacts at once?
>
> Note that everyone don't have to test everything on the list!
>
>
> [1] https://taverna.incubator.apache.org/about/
> [2]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-03+How+to+Review+a+Release+and+Vote
> [3]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TAVERNADEV/2016-03+Details%3A+How+to+Review+a+Release
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
