On 08/01/2011 03:27 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
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?
I don't have a concrete solution at hand yet, but I'm pretty sure this to be
fixable through proper configuration/customization. It will just take some
research and tweaking time, which I regrettably don't have this week.
So if someone else wants to pick this up, please do, otherwise I'm willing to
pick it up or take over next week if not resolved by then.
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?
My preference would be, during these early stages, to wait until the next month.
I consider getting the standard monthly release cycle working, and everyone
adapting to that, more important than interrupting it just to get a failed
release repaired.
AFAIK nobody (yet) is very dependent on these release artifacts to be publicly
available, so working from trunk primarily anyway.
This will change the closer we get to a "production" quality version of Rave,
but right now we're not there yet.
So +1 for waiting for the next monthly release cycle.
Ate
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
