On Sep 2, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
Hi;
This is the OpenWebBeans M3 release [VOTE] process with corrected
artifacts.
I've staged the releases artifacts here:
Plugins repository
--------------------------
http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc1/plugins/org/apache/openwebbeans
Distribution content
----------------------------
http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc1/distribution/org/apache/openwebbeans/apache-openwebbeans-distribution/1.0.0-incubating-M3/
SVN Tag (Revision: 810694)
----------------------------
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openwebbeans/tags/openwebbeans-1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc1/
Please verify that this release package is correct and vote for the
motion to publish this as a openwebbeans M3 release. All votes are
welcome and
will be counted.
Hi Gurkan,
The following files contain old-style apache source license headers
(see http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html):
samples/guess/src/site/site.xml:3: | Copyright 2007-2008 The Apache
Software Foundation.
samples/src/site/site.xml:3: | Copyright 2007-2008 The Apache
Software Foundation.
src/site/site.xml:3: | Copyright 2007-2008 The Apache Software
Foundation.
webbeans-api/src/site/site.xml:3: | Copyright 2007-2008 The Apache
Software Foundation.
webbeans-impl/src/site/site.xml:3: | Copyright 2007-2008 The Apache
Software Foundation.
The following file is improperly copyrighted:
webbeans-api/src/main/java/javax/enterprise/inject/
ResolutionException.java:2: * Copyright 2009 gurkanerdogdu.
When I built samples, the generated .wars don't seem to incude license/
notice files. However, I see that the artifacts that you uploaded do:
e.g. http://people.apache.org/~gerdogdu/staging-repo/OWB/1.0.0-incubating-M3-rc1/plugins/org/apache/openwebbeans/samples/reservation/1.0.0-incubating-M3/
Can you explain why?
Other aspects of the source code look good. Builds fine and guess
sample worked for me. I think the LICENSE/NOTICE files should be
cleaned up a bit. In particular, LICENSE should indicate what
artifacts that the license applies to (e.g. MPL for javassist, etc).
NOTICE file is overly verbose. It should only contain information
which is absolutely required. "includes/uses" is considered bad form
(with current license/notice thinking).
Sorry, but I think the copyright issues will require a new rc. So,
here's my -1.
--kevan
