On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> i think it's about time to think about releasing jsieve 0.2. i think >> i've cleaned up the outstanding code issues now. the website needs >> some more work and help would be appreciated. i have one outstandard >> provenance issue but i hope that should be easy to resolve. >> >> opinions? > > +1 > > I'm running a few check/tests.
great > 1) the ant build put some test file in the binary jar instead of the junit > jar: > org.apache.jsieve.util.check.* > org.apache.jsieve.javaxmail.* > the class SieveAddressBuilderTest > the class SieveParserVisitorImplQuoteTest > I found them by comparing m2 result with ant result (ant is a bit more > "manual" because I had to download 3 jars manually in order to build). > options: > a) ignore the issue > b) fix the ant build > c) use m2 as the official build tool [would only require a better MANIFEST > that I can fix, if needed] i'll fix this in the ant build i'm happy to leave choice of tool to the release manager > 2) Added the rat checks to the pom so I was able to run rat easily. > Everything is ok but I had to add this excludes: > <exclude>NOTICE.base</exclude> > <exclude>LICENSE.apache</exclude> > they are used by the ANT build to put "better" NOTICE/LICENSE in the > resulting jars. > > <exclude>src/site/resources/rfc2234.txt</exclude> > <exclude>src/site/resources/rfc2244.txt</exclude> > <exclude>src/site/resources/rfc2298.txt</exclude> > <exclude>src/site/resources/rfc3028.txt</exclude> > They are rfc: do they need a license header? they include a license header just not an Apache one ;-) it should be retained unchanged. i'm not sure whether to remove them complete and just use links or to add a LICENSE.rfcs document at top level (since we only distribute them with the source). > <exclude>stage/oro/poms/oro-2.0.8.pom</exclude> > This is a very simple pom (the one automatically generated by maven for the > artifact) from an ASF project. It does not have a license header and I guess > we should include as is. i was a little unsure too if it's simple i'd prefer a clean room implementation with header and known provenance > 3) Removed the src/doc/rfc* files because we already have them in the > src/site/resources folder and they are not used by the ant build. good > 4) Removed the samples folder from the root: empty and not used? good - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
