Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc1

DAFFDOIL-1906 [1] was created to document the issues you pointed out, but maybe didn't realize the issues included the copyright lines/BSD licenses in NOTICE. Sounds to me like as part of DAFFODIL-1906, we also need to revert the parts of PR-43 [2] that modified NOTICE/LICENSE information? [1]

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc1

Steve, I pointed out the same issues that Justin pointed out on the dev vote [3]. I also requested that there be JIRAs to document these gaps, did those get created? [3]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6eb215c8a49c2dd245b72353b06ea8d7542e34ee5239eada33e55b88@%3Cdev.daffodil.apache.org%3E

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc1

Dave, In our general@incubator VOTE for rc2, Justin McClean suggested that the copyrights for the BSD license and others should be in the LICENSE rather than the NOTICE [1], which to me seems to conflict with point (1) below. He also provided links that backup his suggestion. Were there special

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc1

Regarding the rat excludes, it looks like RAT is not able to detect BSD licenses. It can detect certain modified BSD licenses (ie. TMF854 and Dojo), but not any of the standard BSD licenses. It seems the maven/ant plugins allow one to add custom patterns, which I suspect is how other projects

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc1

Hi John, I am too. I think Roy Fielding is there as well. It will be good for Legal to be definitive so that we can put the question to rest. Regards, Dave > On Feb 12, 2018, at 4:14 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > Heh, and I just commented on DAFFODIL-1900. I tend to be

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc1

Hi - A few quick comments from a partial review of the Source and Binary release. (1) LICENSE & NOTICE. (a) The copyright portions that are in the LICENSE on the various licenses should be moved to the NOTICE. The LICENSE should still include which files are under the other licenses. (b) The

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc1

We'll definitely hold off for further feedback. Naming logic makes sense to me. As far as binary files in /dist/dev go, my preference (not a strong preference) would be to have the zip/tar/rpm as part of the reviewable materials just so we can catch any errors with those as early as possible,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc1

Multiple issues have been found with this release, so I am officially canceling this vote. We would still ask for continued review of the 2.1.0-rc1 release so that any issues found can be fixed in the 2.1.0-rc2 release. Thanks, - Steve On 02/08/2018 11:30 AM, Steve Lawrence wrote: > Hi all, > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc1

I'll spend some time reviewing it, but right now my vote is a -1 due to the package naming. Ideally, each package is "apache-daffodil-2.1.0-incubating" and this package name should be used on all components. John On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:30 AM Steve Lawrence wrote: > Hi