On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:36 PM, Josh Thompson wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri October 23 2009 4:45:26 pm Kevan Miller wrote:
On Oct 21, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Josh Thompson wrote:
(Question to mentors: Do I need to vote in a successive email in
this thread,
or is this post an implicit vote?)
You should either include an explicit +1 in the initial vote email,
or
"reply" in another email. Either is acceptable. I kind of prefer a
separate email, but that's just me...
Okay - since I didn't include and explicit +1 in the initial
message, I'll do
it here.
+1
Most votes will include a formal statement on what the vote is about.
E.g.:
[ ] +1 yes, release VCL 2.1
[ ] 0 dunno
[ ] -1 no, don't release VCL 2.1 (provide reasons).
Now that you mention it, I remember seeing that in some places.
Somehow, I
came up with an example email calling for a vote that I linked to
off of this
page:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/VCL/VCL+Release+Procedures
direct link to email:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx-dev/200601.mbox/%3c43c1c0a0.7040...@roguewave.com%3e
That email doesn't include what you mentioned. I'll revise the
release docs
to explain that part should be in there and maybe find a better
example
email.
This is the strangest Apache "release" that I've ever seen... Taking
some getting used to... I have some questions/comments. Haven't
decided on my vote, yet.
Since this is the only Apache "release" those of us from NCSU have
ever seen,
can you explain further why you say it is so strange? I thought the
release
procedures page followed the suggested guidelines pretty well. I'm
assuming
the items listed below aren't explaining that but are points you
think need
addressing before finalizing a release.
It's "strange" to me, because I typically assume there is a binary
build, in addition to the source. Installation seems pretty involved.
I'm just going to be *reading* the installation steps, not actually
following them...
* web/.ht-inc/conf.php contains references to Shibboleth and UNC. I
assume that's holdover from VCL's origins.
I left it in there as an example of how Shibboleth authentication
would be
added in. It is commented out, but I can completely remove it if
you think
it is confusing.
It's fine, I think...
* Instructions on installation, prereqs, etc should be clear that a
user must determine the licensing of the technologies that you are
requiring/referring to/downloading. It's not clear to me if that
information is being conveyed. Clearly, you require GPL, LGPL, and
microsoft proprietary artifacts. Wondering how much of this needs to
flow through legal-discuss... Prolly Alan and Matt have thought about
this already.
The web frontend only requires dojo to be installed. It is Apache
Licensed.
The licensing for JPGraph is explained in the INSTALLATION file as
well as
the fact that it is not needed. There are several options on how
you use
VCL, and therefore what external software is needed for use by the
backend.
I'll defer to Aaron and Andy to answer this point further since the
backend
is not my area of focus.
* managementnode/bin/install_perl_libs.pl will download install
libraries, IIUC. What are the licenses of these artifacts? Users need
to be made aware of what you are doing for them...
So, my concern is that we're clear about the licensing implications of
VCL. If VCL automatically downloads some set of libraries, then users
need to be made aware of the licensing implications...
--kevan
