Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 1.0.0 [rc3]
Hi, > All, I'm not sure what the procedure here should be. Do we need to > re-release 1.0.0 or is that horse gone, and we should release a fixed 1.0.1? I would just fix it when you make a new release. Thanks, Justin
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 1.0.0 [rc3]
Thanks for pointing this out, Justin. All, I'm not sure what the procedure here should be. Do we need to re-release 1.0.0 or is that horse gone, and we should release a fixed 1.0.1? Regards Geoff On Mon, 18 May 2020, 10:18 Aled Sage, wrote: > Hi Justin, > > Thanks for spotting this and reaching out. > > Looking at the license/notice generation, I think there are two things > that went wrong for 1.0 release: > > 1. The maven license plugin [1] picked the wrong license for > dependencies when there were multiple to choose from (i.e. LGPL vs > Apache 2.0 in [2]). > > 2. We're trying to include far too much stuff in NOTICE. Quoting the > really useful link you shared [3]: > > "Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally required." > > --- > > We should review point 1 above to confirm there really are no licenses > that are forbidden in apache projects. And we should review point 2 to > change the way we generate NOTICE files so it doesn't include everything. > > Aled > > [1] https://github.com/ahgittin/license-audit-maven-plugin > > [2] https://github.com/java-native-access/jna/blob/master/pom-jna.xml > > [3] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html > > [4] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x > > > On 17/05/2020 10:20, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I was looking reviewing your board report and mailing list and took a > look at your release. The current LICENSE and NOTICE are not in line with > ASF policy. For instance, your license contains licenses that can't be used > in a source release. I think what you have misunderstood is that you're > listing the licenses of all dependencies rather than just what is bundled > in the release. Your notice file also doesn't need to list dependencies but > just required notices, content from other ALv2 notice files and relocated > copyright notices. This is a good guide [1] if you need help on fixing > this, please reach out. > > > > Thanks, > > Justin > > > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html >
[GitHub] [brooklyn-server] iuliana opened a new pull request #1100: WIP: Brings back the helm code
iuliana opened a new pull request #1100: URL: https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/1100 Revert "Revert "This closes #830"" This reverts commit 4236ff272903a8ffe77a06d9b146aea40b3f057e. This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 1.0.0 [rc3]
Hi Justin, Thanks for spotting this and reaching out. Looking at the license/notice generation, I think there are two things that went wrong for 1.0 release: 1. The maven license plugin [1] picked the wrong license for dependencies when there were multiple to choose from (i.e. LGPL vs Apache 2.0 in [2]). 2. We're trying to include far too much stuff in NOTICE. Quoting the really useful link you shared [3]: "Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally required." --- We should review point 1 above to confirm there really are no licenses that are forbidden in apache projects. And we should review point 2 to change the way we generate NOTICE files so it doesn't include everything. Aled [1] https://github.com/ahgittin/license-audit-maven-plugin [2] https://github.com/java-native-access/jna/blob/master/pom-jna.xml [3] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html [4] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x On 17/05/2020 10:20, Justin Mclean wrote: Hi, I was looking reviewing your board report and mailing list and took a look at your release. The current LICENSE and NOTICE are not in line with ASF policy. For instance, your license contains licenses that can't be used in a source release. I think what you have misunderstood is that you're listing the licenses of all dependencies rather than just what is bundled in the release. Your notice file also doesn't need to list dependencies but just required notices, content from other ALv2 notice files and relocated copyright notices. This is a good guide [1] if you need help on fixing this, please reach out. Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
