Craig-

On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:

Hi Marc,

Please read this regarding votes. http://www.apache.org/foundation/ voting.html#ReleaseVotes

<policy>
Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow a format similar to majority approval -- except that the decision is officially determined solely by whether at least three +1 votes were registered. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will table the vote to release if anyone identifies serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, once three or more positive votes have been garnered, lies with the individual serving as release manager. The specifics of the process may vary from project to project, but the 'minimum of three +1 votes' rule is universal.
</policy>

Things are slightly different in the incubator, where a big part of incubation is protecting Apache from legal issues as a result of releasing tainted code. See http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ releasemanagement.html. But much of the incubator release policy is still TODO [sic].

Yeah, I was wondering about that ... my concern was the message at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cxf-dev/ 200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] , which says that a -1 counts as a veto in terms of incubator releases. Of course, this was just a mailing list thread, but in the absence of a specific documented policy, I chose to err on the side of paranoia and just re-start the vote.


The release manager (in this case, Marc) has large discretion on releases. While vetoing a release is not technically possible, the release manager will take constructive comments seriously, especially from mentors, and respin a release as many times as necessary to get consensus.

I would have preferred to just continue the existing vote, but I was worried that while people were voting on one set of artifacts, and then I would swap them out at the last minute with re-spun versions and declare victory ... it seemed a little sketchy to me, even though the modifications made were very minor.

Do you object to re-starting the vote, or were your just trying to point out that it might not have been necessary?


Craig

On Nov 12, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:


-1 from Eddie, so the vote fails (since I believe it constitutes a veto).

I'll re-start the vote with the fixed release files shortly.


On Nov 12, 2006, at 7:03 AM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:

Marc--

 Sounds good -- nice turnaround time.  :)  I agree that it's fine to
defer some of these.

 In NOTICE.txt, be sure to remove this:

Please read the different LICENSE files present in the licenses directory of
  this distribution.

I just removed this as well. I hope it's the last problem with the release.


since I don't think that this is relevant to OpenJPA.

Eddie



On 11/12/06, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eddie-

OK, I've fixed most of these and am re-building the release. Unless
anyone comes up with any other objections, I'll start a new vote
tomorrow morning.

Also, see my comments inline below...


On Nov 11, 2006, at 9:11 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:

>  Great job on this release -- we're really down to nitty-little
> detail issues with the distribution. More detailed comments are below
> -- the highlights fall into two major buckets:
>
> #1: information needed in NOTICE.txt. This refers to the ActiveMQ > project; it also needs to refer to the source files for the binary
> persistence-api JAR file as per the CDDL 1.0 license.  More
> information on ASF policy relative to this license is here:
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>
> Additionally, NOTICE.txt should contain the copyrights for 3rd party
> Serp / persistence-api JARs.  For example:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/ NOTICE.txt

Fixed. If anything at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/
openjpa/trunk/openjpa-project/NOTICE.txt still looks amiss, please
let us know.


> #2: ASF source headers.  There are a bunch of files in the source
> distribution that don't have source headers. There's a great tool
> that one of the Incubator PMC members wrote that checks for these
> headers. It's super easy to checkout, build, and run and can be found
> here:
>
>    http://code.google.com/p/arat/
>
> These are listed below.

I've fixed most of these. See below.

> -1 until #1 is fixed because we need to be compliant with licenses > of bundled 3rd party JARs. I'd suggest fixing #2 as well but leave > that to the community to decide -- though the Incubator PMC is looking
> more closely at license headers these days.  :)
>
> Eddie
>
> =====
> Items checked:
>  - md5 signatures
>  - sha1 signatures
>  - license headers on archived files
>  - example builds and runs
>  - documentation looks good
>  - license compatibility of JAR files
>
> Issues that should be addressed before release:
> - NOTICE.txt references the "ActiveMQ" distribution
> - as per CDDL 1.0, NOTICE.txt must refer to the source for the
> persistence-api sources. For more information about including CDDL
> 1.0 licensed binaries, see:
>  http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html

This has been fixed.

> - source archive includes sun/misc/Perf.java

It was only there as a compilation stub. However, since it was only
required for JDK 1.3 and lower, and since we just voted to drop
support for JDK 1.3, I just went ahead and deleted it.

> - files missing license files:
>  <binary>/examples/META-INF/persistence.xml
>  <source>:
>    - **/*.properties
>    - **/pom.xml
>    - **/*.xml
>    - **/*.rsrc
>    - **/JPQL.jjt
>    - **/*.ProductDerivation
>    - **/*.ExpressionParser
>    - **/*.PersistenceProvider


> - Java files without LICENSE headers -- there were 17 of these.
> Found using:
>    find . -name "*.java" -exec grep --files-without-match
> "LICENSE" {} ;

Fixed.

> - openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating.pom missing license header

Fixed, I think (if you are looking at pom files that are re- generated
by the maven process, then they don't preserve comments, and thus
will lose the license header).


> Minor issues:
> - Javadoc includes a couple of extraneous classes
>  sun.misc.Perf

Removed.

>  hellojpa.Main
>  hellojpa.Message

I believe I've successfully removed these from the javadocs.

> - JARs are named "openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating" but unzip into
> "openjpa-0.9.6-incubating"

This seems to be a weird maven side-effect. I'd like to defer fixing
this until later.

> - distribution files that can be removed
>  openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-binary.zip.asc.md5
>  openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-binary.zip.asc.sha1
>  openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-source.zip.asc.md5
>  openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-source.zip.asc.sha1

Maven automatically generated checksums for every file it uploads
(and I manually add the .asc GPG signature to the uploaded files).
Ideally, I'd like to look into fixing this at a later date.

> - no .tar.gz archives

I feel it is simpler to just have a since .zip file. Since everyone
who wants to use OpenJPA had Java installed (and, therefore, has
"jar" installed), anyone is capable of unpacking the distribution.

Does anyone feel we need an additional .tar.gz archive for the release?


> On 11/9/06, Kevin Sutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> On 11/9/06, Abe White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> ___________________________________________________________________ __
>> __
>> > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
>> contain
>> > information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and
>> affiliated
>> > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
>> and/or
>> > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
>> individual
>> > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
>> recipient,
>> > and have received this message in error, please immediately
>> return this
>> > by email and then delete it.
>> >
>>
>>




Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Reply via email to