On Dec 23, 2007, at 16:38, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi All,
On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote:
To be clear, the classes and jars both build fine by using the
"all" and "jars" ant targets. The javadoc no longer builds for the
end user because of the addition of the url pointing to the NOTICE
file to allow for stand-alone javadoc distributions. The release
zip files also cannot be generated through the use of the
"build.release" target. While the javadoc should build for the end
user, we never intended the end user to build release bundles.
However, I think it looks bad to have a build target that fails for
the end user--I agree that we should either fix it or remove it
from the end user build scripts.
By fixing the javadoc end-user build, the release build will be
fixed as well. The fix will require me to add the NOTICE and
LICENSE files to the source sub-directory in the source
distribution. Note that the source distribution already contains
the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the top level, but the doc and
release builds are not aware of those top-level files. After
committing the changes, I'll generate another release, another set
of corresponding signature and check-sum files, upload the files to
people-apache.org, some folks can do some sanity tests, and we can
start another vote. Did I overlook any steps?
Is this course of action we want to pursue?
Does this course of action address Niclas's issue below?
Adding a disclaimer file is simple enough, so we could include it as
well.
Frank
On Dec 23, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Mark Brouwer wrote:
I think we shouldn't release a source distribution that doesn't
actually
build. But before voting I would like to know whether we can fix this
issue after we approved the release and before presenting a
distribution
to Incubator. I hope so because I don't want to spoil the party.
What the PMC votes on are the signed distribution artifacts so to
change any bit requires another spin and another vote.
Craig
--
Mark
Frank
On Dec 22, 2007, at 12:46 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Saturday 22 December 2007 05:13, Jukka Zitting wrote:
As a minor remark, it would have been good to have the Incubator
disclaimer already in the top-level index.html files within the
release packages, but it's not that big a deal since the disclaimer
can still be found in the release notes.
I think others in the Incubator PMC might be of a different
opinion. Once the
Tar ball is exploded, it is no longer obvious that it is Incubating
project
you are dealing with.
I think Wicket[1] set some good examples;
- Put DISCLAIMER file in the root of the two tar balls. (That is
enough
for me to approve this release.)
- Top level directory inside the tar ball to retain the fully
versioned name,
which includes the disclaimer. (Would like to see that in any
future
releases.)
Otherwise, everything looks cool to me...
[1]
http://people.apache.org/dist/incubator/wicket/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-beta1/dist/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-beta1.tar.gz
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
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!
