Once again Ate, thanks for your attention to detail. Matt, it can be disheartening when someone as detailed as Ate reviews releases for us. However, please take heart from the fact that spotting these things really early like this gets everything in a solid state for later releases when there is, potentially, much more to do.
Thank you Matt for getting it together like this. (by the way, I recently blogged about how developers like Matt and Ate are critical to the success of a project (although this quote is from Stephen Walli): "Without such discipline at the top, I believe no project can succeed regardless of whether it’s academic, IT, or government. This is why Apache and Eclipse and Linux have such well defined and documented engineering disciplines around them, and why they succeed." http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2011/07/22/writing-good-software/ The Rave project owes a great deal to the work of Matt and Ate - thanks guys. Ross On 1 August 2011 14:00, Ate Douma <[email protected]> wrote: > I noticed a couple of "issues" with the LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files: > some new, and some we overlooked for the first 0.1-incubating release as > well. > > A minor remark concerns the NOTICE and LICENSE files added for rave-commons > under src/main/resources/META-INF. > These are not needed as by default the remote-resources plugin already adds > these automatically as such. > And, if additional NOTICE and LICENSE attributions are needed we can use the > same solution as already used for rave-shindig and rave-portal, e.g. use the > src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/ folder to provided "snippets" only to > append to these files. > > However, what is missing in the produced rave-commons jar artifact is the > DISCLAIMER file... > As the DISCLAIMER file is required for incubator produced artifacts, IMO > this is a blocker for the release :( > > While I was checking out the other, automatically generated, artifacts in > the Maven repository, none of the -javadoc and -sources jars are "valid" > from the legal requirements concerning these files. For the rave-commons > module the DISCLAIMER file is missing from these files and for the > rave-shindig and rave-portal modules the -javadoc and -sources jars don't > even contain required LICENSE/NOTICE files... > To fix the latter, we'll probably have to modify the usage and/or > configuration of the maven javadoc and sources plugins for war type modules, > and/or maybe even disable them on war projects? > > Other than the above, I verified the binary downloads and source > distribution and everything else checked out to be fine and good and would > look like a fine release to me. Good job again Matt! > > While missing or or more LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files within those > automatically generated artifacts might be troublesome, I suspect there > might be plenty other projects "missing" out on this too, including > TLP/non-incubator projects. So, if only for this, this might still be > acceptable (maybe with a grunt) for an incubator release. > > However the missing DISCLAIMER file from the rave-commons jar artifact IMO > is not acceptable and therefore I think I'll have to vote -1 :( > > Ate > > On 07/29/2011 10:10 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote: >> >> Discussion thread for vote on 0.2-incubating release candidate. >> >> For more information on the release process, checkout - >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html >> >> Some of the things to check before voting are: >> - can you run the demo binaries >> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag >> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE, NOTICE and >> DISCLAIMER files >> - are all of the staged jars signed and the signature verifiable >> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server >> > > -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
