On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:48 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Please review and vote on RC1 of the SCA 2.0-M5.1 release. >>>>> >>>>> This is a minor relese based on 2.0-M5 and provides fixes to running >>>>> Tuscany applications in Google AppEngine environment and other minor >>>>> fixes to remove compliance tests run from part of the source distro >>>>> build. >>>>> >>>>> The distribution artifacts, RAT reports, and Maven staging repository >>>>> are available for review at: >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende/tuscany/2.0-M5.1-RC1/ >>>>> >>>>> The release tag is at: >>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/tags/2.0-M5.1-RC1/ >>>>> >>>>> Here is my +1 >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ping ? The M5.1 has a very small delta from M5 and should be a easy review. >>>> >>> >>> I will try to get to this today, just have been too busy to spend time >>> on it so far sorry. >>> >>> ...ant >>> >> Sorry Luciano. Only just got to this. Will take a look now. >> >> Simon >> >> -- >> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org >> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com >> > > - Rat looks OK > > - Build of source with clean repo initially failed with... > > Reason: POM 'org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-assembly-plugin' not found in > reposi > tory: Unable to download the artifact from any repository > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-assembly-plugin:pom:2.2-beta-3 > > But it worked this morning when I retried. > > - Key signatures look good > > - I tried some samples. The READMEs still leave a lot to be desired. > This isn't any worse than M5 however. We know we have to make a better > fist of this, hence the re-org in trunk. > > - The samples build against the staged maven artifacts > > - In the bin distro LICENCE file we refer to tuscany-assembly-xsd.jar > and tuscany-sca-api.jar without explicit version numbers. This has > always been the case but I wonder if we should. I also note that we > refer to tuscany-assembly-xsd-osoa in the LICENSE which is not present > any more. > > - There are some odd things in the src distro LICENSE file (they were > like this in M5 but I for one didn't spot them). > > The module itest/databindings/common isn't in the src distro > > The module definitions-xml isn't in the src distro > > The last section which starts with... > > ================= > The module assembly-xsd includes XSD files under the following license: > > The modules > > binding-ws-xml > databinding > databinding-axiom > databinding-jaxb > databinding-json > databinding-sdo > databinding-sdo-axiom > databinding-xmlbeans > interface-wsdl-xml > > Include the ipo.xsd and address.xsd information from the XML Schema Primer > ================= > > It looks like the "The module assembly-xsd includes XSD files under > the following license:" is just a cut and paste as this appears in > front of the previous license. > > Some of the listed modules have been removed or merged with other > modules. Some modules are missing. I believe the list should read. > > binding-ws > databinding > databinding-axiom > databinding-jaxb > databinding-jaxb-axiom > databinding-json > databinding-sdo > databinding-sdo-axiom > interface-wsdl > > I'd like to get the license files fixed before I vote to release. > > Regards >
As these are all present in 2.0-M5, do you really think this is a MUST before we release 2.0-M5.1 ? -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
