Thanks for your comments Ant.
I thought we were going to go through a staged release process as
suggested by Robert.
My expectation was that we would then audit the licenses and the source
code, however that is done.
Only after having done that would a vote make sense, I thought.
I've changed the NOTICE file to appear like so:
Apache Kato
Copyright (c) 2008 - 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed by The Apache Software
Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
Portions of Kato were originally developed by
International Business Machines Corporation and are licensed to the
Apache Software
Foundation under the "Software Grant and Corporate Contribution
License Agreement", informally known as the "IBM Kato CLA".
Licensed Materials - Property of IBM
"Restricted Materials of IBM"
(c) Copyright IBM Corp. 2004, 2008 All Rights Reserved
US Government Users Restricted Rights - Use, duplication or disclosure
restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM Corp.
I'll address the issues with the README/RELEASE files as soon as.
I expect the next action will be for us to go through the next stages as
suggested by
Robert, although we will need more detail as to what that actually
means.. After that
RC3 can be created with the changes the audits have found, and a vote
can be held.
Please let me know if this approach is reasonable.
Thanks again,
Stuart
ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Stuart Monteith<stuk...@stoo.me.uk> wrote:
Hi,
I've put together another release candidate.
The tag is here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/kato/tags/apache-kato-M1-incubating-RC2/
The files are here:
http://people.apache.org/~monteith/kato/apache-kato-M1-incubating-RC2/
I believe I've addressed all of the issues raised on the mailing list, with
the exception of the large dump that was generated when run under Harmony.
In addition, I've not put up the tomcat package, which is just demo code and
needs more explanation.
I've also expanded on the rat reports to report on the Windows and Linux
native packages separately.
i.e.:
rat-bin-linux.txt
rat-bin-windows.txt
rat-bin.txt
rat-src.txt
I also added the MD5 checksums too, as they apparently must be there.
There have been a number of changes. The TCK is available to run now, CJVMTI
has been fixed to address most of the issues found. I also added the
corrections suggested by Andrew Johnson (spelling errors, an other
indisputable points).
We are to go through the licensing and source audits.
Mentors - can you refresh my memory as to what actions we should take next?
To release the artifacts they need to be voted on. The way thats
commonly done is first having a vote on the poddling dev@ mailing list
and then if that passes then hold a vote on the Incubator general@
list. There must be vote on the general@ list and from the two votes
there must be at least three +1s from IPMC members. Sometimes to avoid
the overhead of two votes the votes are run in parrallel by just
cc'ing both lists on the one vote email. You can also just email
general@ asking for review comments without actually holding a vote,
depending on who's around and active you may get comments but often
people are busy and wont find the time till there's actually a [VOTE]
email.
I've had a look at the artifacts, the NOTICE file still isn't perfect,
i probably wasn't as clear as i could have been in the RC1 comments -
the NOTICE file should start with the: Project Name, ASF copyright,
and product includes... statement. so:
Apache Kato
Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed by The Apache Software
Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
and then any Kato specific notices. The HTTPD project is often given
as an example, see one of their NOTICE files at:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/tags/2.3.4/NOTICE
Its also good for every downloadable artifact to include a README and
RELEASE_NOTES file so is easy to find what the artifact is for and
whats changed in this release of it, but those are missing in some of
these Kato artifacts.
Part of doing releases is working out when to ask for reviews and when
to calling votes. There's a balance that needs to be found between
wasting time rebuilding the release, waiting for comments, and calling
votes too often so people stop bothering looking as they assume its
not ready and there'll be a next vote they can review.
...ant
--
Stuart Monteith
http://blog.stoo.me.uk/
