Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
+1 On Mar 30, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote: This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project. We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no major problems. All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. The release artifacts are available at : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1 Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature. The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt. Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
I did basic checking of the candidate and the RAT report and based on that I vote +1 Sorry, that it took me a while. Ciao Henning On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 09:23, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: The Olio community has voted and approved this first binary release of Olio. We are now asking for a Vote of the Incubator PMC to publish this release. The release includes both the PHP and Rails versions of Olio. The release artificats and RAT reports are available here : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/http://people.apache.org/%7Eshanti/olio_0.1/ The mail thread and Vote results from Olio community : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-olio-dev/200904.mbox/ajax/%3c49dd6496.9010...@sun.com%3e Thanks Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
I need one more +1 PMC member vote to get this release out. Can someone else please vote ? The mail thread is here : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200904.mbox/ajax/%3c49e60a04.6020...@sun.com%3e Shanti On 04/23/09 08:55, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:39 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 23/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: sebb wrote: snip But seriously, without these files, we will have to somehow go out and manufacture image/pdf files at install time - uploading files is a big part of a web2.0 workload these days (and for sites like flickr the major workload). FWIW for this kind of thing, i start with the Apache Software License, Version 2.0 in an editor (with a save a PDF option) save to PDF then convert to a binary image format Does anyone else see a serious issue with these files ? I withdraw my -1 vote. i'm now +1 - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:39 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 23/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: sebb wrote: snip But seriously, without these files, we will have to somehow go out and manufacture image/pdf files at install time - uploading files is a big part of a web2.0 workload these days (and for sites like flickr the major workload). FWIW for this kind of thing, i start with the Apache Software License, Version 2.0 in an editor (with a save a PDF option) save to PDF then convert to a binary image format Does anyone else see a serious issue with these files ? I withdraw my -1 vote. i'm now +1 - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:39 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 23/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: sebb wrote: snip But seriously, without these files, we will have to somehow go out and manufacture image/pdf files at install time - uploading files is a big part of a web2.0 workload these days (and for sites like flickr the major workload). FWIW for this kind of thing, i start with the Apache Software License, Version 2.0 in an editor (with a save a PDF option) save to PDF then convert to a binary image format We will do that for the pdf file next time around. It is nice to have real pictures for the images though as they are visible if you use a browser for testing. Does anyone else see a serious issue with these files ? I withdraw my -1 vote. i'm now +1 Thank you. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Thanks for the reversal of the -1. But I still need a +1 ? Shanti sebb wrote: On 23/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: sebb wrote: On 23/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: On 04/22/09 10:35, sebb wrote: On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: On 04/15/09 18:15, sebb wrote: On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: Thank you very much for your very prompt review. Answers to your questions below. Shanti sebb wrote: The OlioDriver.jar file contains a smaller OlioDriver.jar file. This is very confusing; one of the jars should be renamed. This is the format of the Faban (http://faban.sunsource.net) Driver jar - the user never has to do anything with it as the tool will automatically unjar and put everything in it's right place. The binary olio file contains several .patch and .diff files. These don't seem correct for a binary file. What is their purpose? These files are part of the 3rd party plugin fixture_replacement2. Since we tend to include 3rd party code as is (for easier upgrade), I think it might be better to leave them as they are. But why are they in the binary rails jar, rather than in just the source jar? There is no difference between the source and binary code for rails (or php for that matter) since these are interpreted languages. The only difference between the source and binary packages of Olio is the geocoder and workload - these are written in Java so the binary packages have the OlioDriver.jar and geocoder.jar and the source packages have the corresponding source dirs. That does not explain why the diffs and patch files are present in the binary jar, because as far as I can tell they are not intended to be interpreted by rails. Are they actually *needed* at run-time? I really don't know. As I said, there is no concept of 'binary' for scripting languages - the source is the binary. I will try and investigate this matter for the next release if it's not a major problem to leave them here for now. I understand that there is no binary for scripting languages, and therefore .js and .rb files appear in both source and binary archives. However, the .diff and .patch files are scripts for a patch program, which is used to modify source files. Are such patches really applied at run-time? Seems rather wasteful to me if so. But I agree that could be fixed later. The source PHP file contains several jars; I would expect these to be in the binary archive only. It also contains the file event.pdf which does not seem to belong in the archive (or indeed in SVN). These are third-party jars. They are included as a convenience to make it easier to build and run the source. What about the event.pdf file? This is a resource file used by the web application. If you notice there are several image files as well - these are all static files used by the web app. What about the license for the event.pdf file? Is that also AL licensed? All the resource files are created as part of the apache project, so they are all Apache licensed. According to its properties, the event.pdf file was created in 1999 and last modified in 2004. AFAIK, that is well before the Apache project started. The file event.jpg was created in 2006, which was also before the project, and is a picture of 5 real people. Hopefully they have given permission for their photos to be published. This project was started a long time ago at Sun - all of the code including these files was then donated to apache. Neither appears to be present in the binary file, so I'm not sure how the web application can use them. They do exist in the binary package - they are part of
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
It has been a week since I sent this request for a VOTE. Craig and sebb have reviewed it. Would really appreciate if someone else can take a look and vote. sebb - if you are satisfied with the responses to your questions, can you please vote ? Thanks Shanti Original Message Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:20:32 -0700 From: Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org, shanti.subraman...@sun.com Organization: Sun Microsystems To: general@incubator.apache.org References: 49e60a04.6020...@sun.com Here is some additional information : . The following people have cast their Vote in favor of this release: - Committers; Akara Sucharitakul, William Sobel, Sheetal Patel, Shanti Subramanyam - Additional users/developers: Amanda Waite, - Mentors: Craig Russell . Craig has reviewed the licensed and his comments can be viewed at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-olio-dev/200904.mbox/%3c85fd5a49-08f5-49c0-b2ed-ddfc47713...@sun.com%3e The license for attachment_fu and white_list rails plugins is available at http://svn.techno-weenie.net/projects/plugins/LICENSE. Thanks Shanti On 04/15/09 09:23, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote: The Olio community has voted and approved this first binary release of Olio. We are now asking for a Vote of the Incubator PMC to publish this release. The release includes both the PHP and Rails versions of Olio. The release artificats and RAT reports are available here : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/ The mail thread and Vote results from Olio community : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-olio-dev/200904.mbox/ajax/%3c49dd6496.9010...@sun.com%3e Thanks Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: On 04/15/09 18:15, sebb wrote: On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: Thank you very much for your very prompt review. Answers to your questions below. Shanti sebb wrote: The OlioDriver.jar file contains a smaller OlioDriver.jar file. This is very confusing; one of the jars should be renamed. This is the format of the Faban (http://faban.sunsource.net) Driver jar - the user never has to do anything with it as the tool will automatically unjar and put everything in it's right place. The binary olio file contains several .patch and .diff files. These don't seem correct for a binary file. What is their purpose? These files are part of the 3rd party plugin fixture_replacement2. Since we tend to include 3rd party code as is (for easier upgrade), I think it might be better to leave them as they are. But why are they in the binary rails jar, rather than in just the source jar? There is no difference between the source and binary code for rails (or php for that matter) since these are interpreted languages. The only difference between the source and binary packages of Olio is the geocoder and workload - these are written in Java so the binary packages have the OlioDriver.jar and geocoder.jar and the source packages have the corresponding source dirs. That does not explain why the diffs and patch files are present in the binary jar, because as far as I can tell they are not intended to be interpreted by rails. Are they actually *needed* at run-time? The source PHP file contains several jars; I would expect these to be in the binary archive only. It also contains the file event.pdf which does not seem to belong in the archive (or indeed in SVN). These are third-party jars. They are included as a convenience to make it easier to build and run the source. What about the event.pdf file? This is a resource file used by the web application. If you notice there are several image files as well - these are all static files used by the web app. What about the license for the event.pdf file? Is that also AL licensed? Shanti Thanks Shanti On 04/15/09 09:23, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote: The Olio community has voted and approved this first binary release of Olio. We are now asking for a Vote of the Incubator PMC to publish this release. The release includes both the PHP and Rails versions of Olio. The release artificats and RAT reports are available here : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/ The mail thread and Vote results from Olio community : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-olio-dev/200904.mbox/ajax/%3c49dd6496.9010...@sun.com%3e Thanks Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: It has been a week since I sent this request for a VOTE. Craig and sebb have reviewed it. Would really appreciate if someone else can take a look and vote. i've just taken a look and it looks ok to me but i'd like to hear the answers to sebb's questions before casting my vote - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 04/22/09 10:35, sebb wrote: On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: On 04/15/09 18:15, sebb wrote: On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: Thank you very much for your very prompt review. Answers to your questions below. Shanti sebb wrote: The OlioDriver.jar file contains a smaller OlioDriver.jar file. This is very confusing; one of the jars should be renamed. This is the format of the Faban (http://faban.sunsource.net) Driver jar - the user never has to do anything with it as the tool will automatically unjar and put everything in it's right place. The binary olio file contains several .patch and .diff files. These don't seem correct for a binary file. What is their purpose? These files are part of the 3rd party plugin fixture_replacement2. Since we tend to include 3rd party code as is (for easier upgrade), I think it might be better to leave them as they are. But why are they in the binary rails jar, rather than in just the source jar? There is no difference between the source and binary code for rails (or php for that matter) since these are interpreted languages. The only difference between the source and binary packages of Olio is the geocoder and workload - these are written in Java so the binary packages have the OlioDriver.jar and geocoder.jar and the source packages have the corresponding source dirs. That does not explain why the diffs and patch files are present in the binary jar, because as far as I can tell they are not intended to be interpreted by rails. Are they actually *needed* at run-time? I really don't know. As I said, there is no concept of 'binary' for scripting languages - the source is the binary. I will try and investigate this matter for the next release if it's not a major problem to leave them here for now. The source PHP file contains several jars; I would expect these to be in the binary archive only. It also contains the file event.pdf which does not seem to belong in the archive (or indeed in SVN). These are third-party jars. They are included as a convenience to make it easier to build and run the source. What about the event.pdf file? This is a resource file used by the web application. If you notice there are several image files as well - these are all static files used by the web app. What about the license for the event.pdf file? Is that also AL licensed? All the resource files are created as part of the apache project, so they are all Apache licensed. Shanti Thanks Shanti On 04/15/09 09:23, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote: The Olio community has voted and approved this first binary release of Olio. We are now asking for a Vote of the Incubator PMC to publish this release. The release includes both the PHP and Rails versions of Olio. The release artificats and RAT reports are available here : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/ The mail thread and Vote results from Olio community : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-olio-dev/200904.mbox/ajax/%3c49dd6496.9010...@sun.com%3e Thanks Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 23/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: On 04/22/09 10:35, sebb wrote: On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: On 04/15/09 18:15, sebb wrote: On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: Thank you very much for your very prompt review. Answers to your questions below. Shanti sebb wrote: The OlioDriver.jar file contains a smaller OlioDriver.jar file. This is very confusing; one of the jars should be renamed. This is the format of the Faban (http://faban.sunsource.net) Driver jar - the user never has to do anything with it as the tool will automatically unjar and put everything in it's right place. The binary olio file contains several .patch and .diff files. These don't seem correct for a binary file. What is their purpose? These files are part of the 3rd party plugin fixture_replacement2. Since we tend to include 3rd party code as is (for easier upgrade), I think it might be better to leave them as they are. But why are they in the binary rails jar, rather than in just the source jar? There is no difference between the source and binary code for rails (or php for that matter) since these are interpreted languages. The only difference between the source and binary packages of Olio is the geocoder and workload - these are written in Java so the binary packages have the OlioDriver.jar and geocoder.jar and the source packages have the corresponding source dirs. That does not explain why the diffs and patch files are present in the binary jar, because as far as I can tell they are not intended to be interpreted by rails. Are they actually *needed* at run-time? I really don't know. As I said, there is no concept of 'binary' for scripting languages - the source is the binary. I will try and investigate this matter for the next release if it's not a major problem to leave them here for now. I understand that there is no binary for scripting languages, and therefore .js and .rb files appear in both source and binary archives. However, the .diff and .patch files are scripts for a patch program, which is used to modify source files. Are such patches really applied at run-time? Seems rather wasteful to me if so. But I agree that could be fixed later. The source PHP file contains several jars; I would expect these to be in the binary archive only. It also contains the file event.pdf which does not seem to belong in the archive (or indeed in SVN). These are third-party jars. They are included as a convenience to make it easier to build and run the source. What about the event.pdf file? This is a resource file used by the web application. If you notice there are several image files as well - these are all static files used by the web app. What about the license for the event.pdf file? Is that also AL licensed? All the resource files are created as part of the apache project, so they are all Apache licensed. According to its properties, the event.pdf file was created in 1999 and last modified in 2004. AFAIK, that is well before the Apache project started. The file event.jpg was created in 2006, which was also before the project, and is a picture of 5 real people. Hopefully they have given permission for their photos to be published. Neither appears to be present in the binary file, so I'm not sure how the web application can use them. Note that there are other jpg files in the same directory with much the same contents: event_thumb.jpg, person.jpg and person_thumb.jpg. AFAICT, these files don't belong in SVN or in any of the archives. My vote is -1 based on the above. Shanti Thanks Shanti On 04/15/09 09:23, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote: The Olio community has voted and approved this first binary release of Olio. We are now asking for a Vote of the Incubator PMC to publish this release. The release includes both the PHP and Rails versions of Olio. The release artificats and RAT reports are available here : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/ The mail thread and Vote results from Olio community :
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
sebb wrote: On 23/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: On 04/22/09 10:35, sebb wrote: On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: On 04/15/09 18:15, sebb wrote: On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: Thank you very much for your very prompt review. Answers to your questions below. Shanti sebb wrote: The OlioDriver.jar file contains a smaller OlioDriver.jar file. This is very confusing; one of the jars should be renamed. This is the format of the Faban (http://faban.sunsource.net) Driver jar - the user never has to do anything with it as the tool will automatically unjar and put everything in it's right place. The binary olio file contains several .patch and .diff files. These don't seem correct for a binary file. What is their purpose? These files are part of the 3rd party plugin fixture_replacement2. Since we tend to include 3rd party code as is (for easier upgrade), I think it might be better to leave them as they are. But why are they in the binary rails jar, rather than in just the source jar? There is no difference between the source and binary code for rails (or php for that matter) since these are interpreted languages. The only difference between the source and binary packages of Olio is the geocoder and workload - these are written in Java so the binary packages have the OlioDriver.jar and geocoder.jar and the source packages have the corresponding source dirs. That does not explain why the diffs and patch files are present in the binary jar, because as far as I can tell they are not intended to be interpreted by rails. Are they actually *needed* at run-time? I really don't know. As I said, there is no concept of 'binary' for scripting languages - the source is the binary. I will try and investigate this matter for the next release if it's not a major problem to leave them here for now. I understand that there is no binary for scripting languages, and therefore .js and .rb files appear in both source and binary archives. However, the .diff and .patch files are scripts for a patch program, which is used to modify source files. Are such patches really applied at run-time? Seems rather wasteful to me if so. But I agree that could be fixed later. The source PHP file contains several jars; I would expect these to be in the binary archive only. It also contains the file event.pdf which does not seem to belong in the archive (or indeed in SVN). These are third-party jars. They are included as a convenience to make it easier to build and run the source. What about the event.pdf file? This is a resource file used by the web application. If you notice there are several image files as well - these are all static files used by the web app. What about the license for the event.pdf file? Is that also AL licensed? All the resource files are created as part of the apache project, so they are all Apache licensed. According to its properties, the event.pdf file was created in 1999 and last modified in 2004. AFAIK, that is well before the Apache project started. The file event.jpg was created in 2006, which was also before the project, and is a picture of 5 real people. Hopefully they have given permission for their photos to be published. This project was started a long time ago at Sun - all of the code including these files was then donated to apache. Neither appears to be present in the binary file, so I'm not sure how the web application can use them. They do exist in the binary package - they are part of OlioDriver.jar. Note that there are other jpg files in the same directory with much the same contents: event_thumb.jpg, person.jpg and person_thumb.jpg. AFAICT, these files don't belong in SVN or in any of the archives. These files are required at run-time. The driver uses these resource files to upload content to the web application - please see the source code under 'workload/.../driver'. My vote is -1 based on the above. I guess I don't really understand what the objection to having these files are. If you're concerned about the photo itself (it was actually just taken by one of the engineers), I can replace it with a picture of me although you may actually prefer the current image :-) But seriously, without these files, we will have to somehow go out and manufacture image/pdf files at install time -
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 23/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: sebb wrote: On 23/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: On 04/22/09 10:35, sebb wrote: On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: On 04/15/09 18:15, sebb wrote: On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: Thank you very much for your very prompt review. Answers to your questions below. Shanti sebb wrote: The OlioDriver.jar file contains a smaller OlioDriver.jar file. This is very confusing; one of the jars should be renamed. This is the format of the Faban (http://faban.sunsource.net) Driver jar - the user never has to do anything with it as the tool will automatically unjar and put everything in it's right place. The binary olio file contains several .patch and .diff files. These don't seem correct for a binary file. What is their purpose? These files are part of the 3rd party plugin fixture_replacement2. Since we tend to include 3rd party code as is (for easier upgrade), I think it might be better to leave them as they are. But why are they in the binary rails jar, rather than in just the source jar? There is no difference between the source and binary code for rails (or php for that matter) since these are interpreted languages. The only difference between the source and binary packages of Olio is the geocoder and workload - these are written in Java so the binary packages have the OlioDriver.jar and geocoder.jar and the source packages have the corresponding source dirs. That does not explain why the diffs and patch files are present in the binary jar, because as far as I can tell they are not intended to be interpreted by rails. Are they actually *needed* at run-time? I really don't know. As I said, there is no concept of 'binary' for scripting languages - the source is the binary. I will try and investigate this matter for the next release if it's not a major problem to leave them here for now. I understand that there is no binary for scripting languages, and therefore .js and .rb files appear in both source and binary archives. However, the .diff and .patch files are scripts for a patch program, which is used to modify source files. Are such patches really applied at run-time? Seems rather wasteful to me if so. But I agree that could be fixed later. The source PHP file contains several jars; I would expect these to be in the binary archive only. It also contains the file event.pdf which does not seem to belong in the archive (or indeed in SVN). These are third-party jars. They are included as a convenience to make it easier to build and run the source. What about the event.pdf file? This is a resource file used by the web application. If you notice there are several image files as well - these are all static files used by the web app. What about the license for the event.pdf file? Is that also AL licensed? All the resource files are created as part of the apache project, so they are all Apache licensed. According to its properties, the event.pdf file was created in 1999 and last modified in 2004. AFAIK, that is well before the Apache project started. The file event.jpg was created in 2006, which was also before the project, and is a picture of 5 real people. Hopefully they have given permission for their photos to be published. This project was started a long time ago at Sun - all of the code including these files was then donated to apache.
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 04/15/09 18:15, sebb wrote: On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: Thank you very much for your very prompt review. Answers to your questions below. Shanti sebb wrote: The OlioDriver.jar file contains a smaller OlioDriver.jar file. This is very confusing; one of the jars should be renamed. This is the format of the Faban (http://faban.sunsource.net) Driver jar - the user never has to do anything with it as the tool will automatically unjar and put everything in it's right place. The binary olio file contains several .patch and .diff files. These don't seem correct for a binary file. What is their purpose? These files are part of the 3rd party plugin fixture_replacement2. Since we tend to include 3rd party code as is (for easier upgrade), I think it might be better to leave them as they are. But why are they in the binary rails jar, rather than in just the source jar? There is no difference between the source and binary code for rails (or php for that matter) since these are interpreted languages. The only difference between the source and binary packages of Olio is the geocoder and workload - these are written in Java so the binary packages have the OlioDriver.jar and geocoder.jar and the source packages have the corresponding source dirs. The source PHP file contains several jars; I would expect these to be in the binary archive only. It also contains the file event.pdf which does not seem to belong in the archive (or indeed in SVN). These are third-party jars. They are included as a convenience to make it easier to build and run the source. What about the event.pdf file? This is a resource file used by the web application. If you notice there are several image files as well - these are all static files used by the web app. Shanti Thanks Shanti On 04/15/09 09:23, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote: The Olio community has voted and approved this first binary release of Olio. We are now asking for a Vote of the Incubator PMC to publish this release. The release includes both the PHP and Rails versions of Olio. The release artificats and RAT reports are available here : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/ The mail thread and Vote results from Olio community : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-olio-dev/200904.mbox/ajax/%3c49dd6496.9010...@sun.com%3e Thanks Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 15/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: Here is some additional information : . The following people have cast their Vote in favor of this release: - Committers; Akara Sucharitakul, William Sobel, Sheetal Patel, Shanti Subramanyam - Additional users/developers: Amanda Waite, - Mentors: Craig Russell . Craig has reviewed the licensed and his comments can be viewed at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-olio-dev/200904.mbox/%3c85fd5a49-08f5-49c0-b2ed-ddfc47713...@sun.com%3e The license for attachment_fu and white_list rails plugins is available at http://svn.techno-weenie.net/projects/plugins/LICENSE. If these plugins are included in the distribution then the appropriate details need to be included in the NOTICE and LICENSE files. What about the other Rails plugins, i.e. acts_as_network acts_as_taggable calendar_helper country_select fixture_replacement2 rails_rcov rorclassify rspec rspec_rails Don't these need to be mentioned somewhere? -1 from me unless the above concerns can be addressed. The OlioDriver.jar file contains a smaller OlioDriver.jar file. This is very confusing; one of the jars should be renamed. The binary olio file contains several .patch and .diff files. These don't seem correct for a binary file. What is their purpose? The source PHP file contains several jars; I would expect these to be in the binary archive only. It also contains the file event.pdf which does not seem to belong in the archive (or indeed in SVN). Thanks Shanti On 04/15/09 09:23, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote: The Olio community has voted and approved this first binary release of Olio. We are now asking for a Vote of the Incubator PMC to publish this release. The release includes both the PHP and Rails versions of Olio. The release artificats and RAT reports are available here : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/ The mail thread and Vote results from Olio community : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-olio-dev/200904.mbox/ajax/%3c49dd6496.9010...@sun.com%3e Thanks Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 15/04/2009, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 15/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: Here is some additional information : . The following people have cast their Vote in favor of this release: - Committers; Akara Sucharitakul, William Sobel, Sheetal Patel, Shanti Subramanyam - Additional users/developers: Amanda Waite, - Mentors: Craig Russell . Craig has reviewed the licensed and his comments can be viewed at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-olio-dev/200904.mbox/%3c85fd5a49-08f5-49c0-b2ed-ddfc47713...@sun.com%3e The license for attachment_fu and white_list rails plugins is available at http://svn.techno-weenie.net/projects/plugins/LICENSE. If these plugins are included in the distribution then the appropriate details need to be included in the NOTICE and LICENSE files. What about the other Rails plugins, i.e. acts_as_network acts_as_taggable calendar_helper country_select fixture_replacement2 rails_rcov rorclassify rspec rspec_rails Don't these need to be mentioned somewhere? -1 from me unless the above concerns can be addressed. Sorry, must have been looking at the wrong N L files - I see that these are all mentioned in the OLIO N L files. The OlioDriver.jar file contains a smaller OlioDriver.jar file. This is very confusing; one of the jars should be renamed. The binary olio file contains several .patch and .diff files. These don't seem correct for a binary file. What is their purpose? The source PHP file contains several jars; I would expect these to be in the binary archive only. It also contains the file event.pdf which does not seem to belong in the archive (or indeed in SVN). -0 for the above. Thanks Shanti On 04/15/09 09:23, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote: The Olio community has voted and approved this first binary release of Olio. We are now asking for a Vote of the Incubator PMC to publish this release. The release includes both the PHP and Rails versions of Olio. The release artificats and RAT reports are available here : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/ The mail thread and Vote results from Olio community : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-olio-dev/200904.mbox/ajax/%3c49dd6496.9010...@sun.com%3e Thanks Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 16/04/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: Thank you very much for your very prompt review. Answers to your questions below. Shanti sebb wrote: The OlioDriver.jar file contains a smaller OlioDriver.jar file. This is very confusing; one of the jars should be renamed. This is the format of the Faban (http://faban.sunsource.net) Driver jar - the user never has to do anything with it as the tool will automatically unjar and put everything in it's right place. The binary olio file contains several .patch and .diff files. These don't seem correct for a binary file. What is their purpose? These files are part of the 3rd party plugin fixture_replacement2. Since we tend to include 3rd party code as is (for easier upgrade), I think it might be better to leave them as they are. But why are they in the binary rails jar, rather than in just the source jar? The source PHP file contains several jars; I would expect these to be in the binary archive only. It also contains the file event.pdf which does not seem to belong in the archive (or indeed in SVN). These are third-party jars. They are included as a convenience to make it easier to build and run the source. What about the event.pdf file? Shanti Thanks Shanti On 04/15/09 09:23, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote: The Olio community has voted and approved this first binary release of Olio. We are now asking for a Vote of the Incubator PMC to publish this release. The release includes both the PHP and Rails versions of Olio. The release artificats and RAT reports are available here : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/ The mail thread and Vote results from Olio community : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-olio-dev/200904.mbox/ajax/%3c49dd6496.9010...@sun.com%3e Thanks Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project. We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no major problems. All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. The release artifacts are available at : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1 It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag. Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature. Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well. MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be uploaded to a server. Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN? The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt. Cannot read these: You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
I've just noticed that the download links for 0.1 are already in place at http://incubator.apache.org/olio/downloads.html and seem to be working. I thought the release vote had to succeed before publishing anything? See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-distribution On 31/03/2009, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project. We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no major problems. All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. The release artifacts are available at : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1 It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag. Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature. Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well. MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be uploaded to a server. Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN? The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt. Cannot read these: You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
sebb wrote: On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project. We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no major problems. All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. The release artifacts are available at : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1 It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag. SVN : https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/ Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature. Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well. I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement. MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be uploaded to a server. Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN? I have now uploaded the KEYS file to http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1. The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt. Cannot read these: You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. Fixed permissions. The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice I shall fix this. Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Sorry about that. This was because of my lack of understanding of the process. I have removed the link now and will re-distribute artifacts after approval. Shanti sebb wrote: I've just noticed that the download links for 0.1 are already in place at http://incubator.apache.org/olio/downloads.html and seem to be working. I thought the release vote had to succeed before publishing anything? See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-distribution On 31/03/2009, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project. We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no major problems. All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. The release artifacts are available at : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1 It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag. Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature. Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well. MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be uploaded to a server. Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN? The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt. Cannot read these: You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Hi Sebb, Thanks for taking a look. The artifacts were uploaded prematurely and will be taken down. A couple of comments below as well... On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:22 AM, sebb wrote: On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project. We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no major problems. All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. The release artifacts are available at : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1 It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag. Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature. Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well. MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be uploaded to a server. I was able to download the key from subkeys.pgp.net gpg: key D39CE220: public key Shanti Subramanyam (Shanti) shanti.subraman...@sun.com imported gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: imported: 1 Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN? http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/KEYS Craig The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt. Cannot read these: You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell craig.russ...@sun.com wrote: Hi Sebb, Thanks for taking a look. The artifacts were uploaded prematurely and will be taken down. A couple of comments below as well... On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:22 AM, sebb wrote: On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project. We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no major problems. All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. The release artifacts are available at : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1 It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag. Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature. Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well. MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be uploaded to a server. I was able to download the key from subkeys.pgp.net gpg: key D39CE220: public key Shanti Subramanyam (Shanti) shanti.subraman...@sun.com imported gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: imported: 1 So can I now. Must have been a temporary problem my end. Sorry for the noise. Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN? http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/KEYS Craig The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt. Cannot read these: You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: sebb wrote: On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project. We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no major problems. All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the correct headers. AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing copyright headers. It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation. The release artifacts are available at : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1 It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag. SVN : https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/ Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature. Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well. I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement. MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be uploaded to a server. Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN? I have now uploaded the KEYS file to http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1. The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt. Cannot read these: You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. Fixed permissions. The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice I shall fix this. Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote: On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: sebb wrote: On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project. We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no major problems. All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the correct headers. AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing copyright headers. It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation. Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not lost. There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the !-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc. If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message. Craig The release artifacts are available at : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1 It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag. SVN : https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/ Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature. Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well. I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement. MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be uploaded to a server. Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN? I have now uploaded the KEYS file to http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1. The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt. Cannot read these: You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. Fixed permissions. The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice I shall fix this. Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell craig.russ...@sun.com wrote: On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote: On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: sebb wrote: On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project. We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no major problems. All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the correct headers. AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing copyright headers. It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation. Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not lost. So long as there is permission from the owner for doing so - which I assume is the case here? There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the !-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc. If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message. +1 Craig The release artifacts are available at : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1 It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag. SVN : https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/ Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature. Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well. I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement. MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be uploaded to a server. Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN? I have now uploaded the KEYS file to http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1. The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt. Cannot read these: You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. Fixed permissions. The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice I shall fix this. Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: sebb wrote: On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project. We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no major problems. All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. The release artifacts are available at : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1 It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag. SVN : https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/ The SVN content/layout looks a bit odd. The directory http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk appears to have a complete copy of Rails in it. Is that really necessary? No wonder there are so many files without headers. Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature. Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well. I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement. MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be uploaded to a server. Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN? I have now uploaded the KEYS file to http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1. The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt. Cannot read these: You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. Fixed permissions. The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice I shall fix this. Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 31/03/2009, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: sebb wrote: On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project. We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no major problems. All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. The release artifacts are available at : http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1 It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag. SVN : https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/ The SVN content/layout looks a bit odd. The directory http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk appears to have a complete copy of Rails in it. Is that really necessary? No wonder there are so many files without headers. Also, the PHP source archive contains several jars. Their Licenses don't appear to be present, and the NOTICE file does not mention them. Source archives should not normally include runtime jars, and it's not clear if these particular jars are redistributable. The binary PHP archive contains a file called create_accessible_content.h. Looks odd to have a C/C++ header file in there - but in fact it's an HTM(L) file. Not sure what happened there. The RAILS binary archive contains several DIFF files, which surely don't belong there? It also contains the OlioDriver.jar, which contains some 3rd party jars, as well as a jar called OlioDriver.jar. This latter appears to be the real Olio code. Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature. Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well. I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement. MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be uploaded to a server. Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN? I have now uploaded the KEYS file to http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1. The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt. Cannot read these: You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. You don't have permission to access /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server. Fixed permissions. The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice I shall fix this. Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Craig L Russell wrote: On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote: All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the correct headers. AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing copyright headers. It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation. Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not lost. There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the !-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc. If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message. Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and all source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no other copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from third-party plugins which according to http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be left where they are - so I didn't touch them. However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code and we can't insert any notices in them. I assume this is acceptable. We have binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code with no notices at all which is what RAT is flagging. For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking in the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses). Craig Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 31/03/2009, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam shanti.subraman...@sun.com wrote: Craig L Russell wrote: On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote: All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the correct headers. AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing copyright headers. It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation. Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not lost. There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the !-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc. If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message. Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and all source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no other copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from third-party plugins which according to http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be left where they are - so I didn't touch them. See my other mail - I don't think they should be in SVN. However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code and we can't insert any notices in them. RAT takes note of some generated files - not sure exactly what it looks for, but if you can add the necessary line to the file - or even a line that tells humans it is generate - that would be good. I assume this is acceptable. We have binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code with no notices at all which is what RAT is flagging. For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking in the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses). There also appears to be a compile runtime dependency on Faban, which is CDDL. This needs to be documented in the README and NL files. Does the 3rd party source really need to be in SVN? Craig Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote: Craig L Russell wrote: On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote: All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the correct headers. AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing copyright headers. It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation. Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not lost. There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the !-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc. If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message. Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and all source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no other copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from third-party plugins which according to http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be left where they are - so I didn't touch them. RIght, but they would need to be put into the NOTICE so people don't have to scour the release looking for third party copyright notices. However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code and we can't insert any notices in them. I assume this is acceptable. Right. This is not an issue. You might note these in the release vote discussion of the RAT output. We have binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code with no notices at all which is what RAT is flagging. The binary files are ok. If RAT is flagging them then we would need to look at why RAT doesn't understand the file suffix. For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking in the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses). Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE. Craig Craig Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell craig.russ...@sun.com wrote: On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote: Craig L Russell wrote: On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote: All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files. However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the correct headers. AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing copyright headers. It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation. Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not lost. There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the !-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc. If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message. Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and all source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no other copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from third-party plugins which according to http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be left where they are - so I didn't touch them. RIght, but they would need to be put into the NOTICE so people don't have to scour the release looking for third party copyright notices. However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code and we can't insert any notices in them. I assume this is acceptable. Right. This is not an issue. You might note these in the release vote discussion of the RAT output. We have binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code with no notices at all which is what RAT is flagging. The binary files are ok. If RAT is flagging them then we would need to look at why RAT doesn't understand the file suffix. For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking in the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses). I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN. Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby license: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code. Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE. Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)? Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file. Craig Craig Shanti - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sebb wrote: I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN. Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby license: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code. There are a few parts in the olio distribution that we need to consider: 1. Olio code written in Ruby that we wrote and license under Apache license. 2. Unmodified third party Ruby code under the Ruby license. The resolved.html says we can have an external dependency on these files. We just cannot distribute them. So we need to remove the files from the distribution and provide instructions for our users how to obtain and install them. I'd guess that the Rails implementation (assuming that we depend on some specific unmodified version of Rails) falls into this category. Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE. Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)? Verbatim is preferred, as we can't assume that a link can be followed just because a user has obtained the distribution. Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file. RIght. No matter how many times I read them, I cannot remember the rules without having them in front of me. Craig Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell craig.russ...@sun.com wrote: On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sebb wrote: I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN. Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby license: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code. There are a few parts in the olio distribution that we need to consider: 1. Olio code written in Ruby that we wrote and license under Apache license. Yes. 2. Unmodified third party Ruby code under the Ruby license. The resolved.html says we can have an external dependency on these files. We just cannot distribute them. So we need to remove the files from the distribution and provide instructions for our users how to obtain and install them. I'd guess that the Rails implementation (assuming that we depend on some specific unmodified version of Rails) falls into this category. I would think so too. Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE. Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)? Verbatim is preferred, as we can't assume that a link can be followed just because a user has obtained the distribution. Sorry, I meant a local link, e.g. LICENSE mentions the file LICENCE_BSD.txt which is preferably in the same directory. It's important that the user can start with the LICENSE file and find all the licenses without having to search the directories to find them. Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file. RIght. No matter how many times I read them, I cannot remember the rules without having them in front of me. AIUI, the NOTICE file is supposed to be usable in an About box, so needs to hold the minimum necessary. I find that helps me remember. Craig Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Since we have two packages with different LICENSE and NOTICE files, is it okay to name them as follows : . LICENSE_php.txt, NOTICE_php.txt . LICENSE_rails.txt, NOTICE_rails.txt Shanti Craig L Russell wrote: On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sebb wrote: I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN. Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby license: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code. There are a few parts in the olio distribution that we need to consider: 1. Olio code written in Ruby that we wrote and license under Apache license. 2. Unmodified third party Ruby code under the Ruby license. The resolved.html says we can have an external dependency on these files. We just cannot distribute them. So we need to remove the files from the distribution and provide instructions for our users how to obtain and install them. I'd guess that the Rails implementation (assuming that we depend on some specific unmodified version of Rails) falls into this category. Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE. Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)? Verbatim is preferred, as we can't assume that a link can be followed just because a user has obtained the distribution. Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file. RIght. No matter how many times I read them, I cannot remember the rules without having them in front of me. Craig Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
