On 8/1/11 9:00 AM, "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 :(
Oops. Missed that one :) > >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? I don't think we should disable them. Anyone have an idea of how to modify the plugin configuration to add the files? > >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 :( I will create issues for the fixing the files and assign them to 0.3. The real question now is, do we fix them and spin 0.3 now or do we just wait for next month? > >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 >> >
