You can expect this release to take quite a few attempts. Let me explain a little of how the incubator works:
The votes that 'count' are those of the Project Management Committee (PMC) responsible for the code base. In the case of a project in the Incubator, it is the Incubator PMC that vouches for it to the ASF. Therefore, for while project committer and other votes are really important, for the vote to pass it must have three +1 votes from incubator PMC members (on this list, that includes myself and Christian - so we would need to seek at least an additional vote for it to pass, by announcing the vote on gene...@incubator.apache.org). In one sense, releasing code is pretty easy - make a zip and ship it. At Apache, we add constraints about how a release is done, so that our users know what they can expect of it. The first release is therefore always the hardest, as it typically gets a lot of vetting, and goes through a lot of iterations - the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the actual code itself, but more to do with crossing the legal 't's. So expect some iterations. It is possible to assume that this is people just being difficult - please give us the benefit and let the process continue, and both this release will go out, and Wave will be set up to be able to make future releases much more easily, as all those 't's will still be crossed. Upayavira On Tue, Jun 4, 2013, at 08:09 PM, Alfredo Abambres wrote: > I only counted 2 "-1" and a lot of "+1". > How does the voting work? Does some of the two "-1" has the ability veto > decisions? > > http://alfredo.abambres.com > > *"Moving, always moving, and living inside movement". Rainer Maria Rilke* > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hmm, strange, I didn't receive the vote results... > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:41 PM, John Blossom - Shore Communications Inc. < > > jblos...@shore.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks, Ali, I look forward to going through the whitepapers materials, > > not > > > as a gatekeeper but for my own interest and feedback. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > I have put them in a whitepapers folder: > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/whitepapers/ > > > > > > > > On 3 June 2013 22:15, Angus Turner <angusisf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On further inspection they contain all the stuff to build them as > > well, > > > > it > > > > > really looks like they should be in a different repo. Or at least not > > > > > included in a release. Not sure what we should do here... > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Angus Turner > > > > > angusisf...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Angus Turner <angusisf...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hey Ali, > > > > >> Maybe the easiest thing with the whitepaper and spec directories is > > to > > > > >> move them onto the wiki. seems a bit weird to have documentation > > like > > > > that > > > > >> included within a release... > > > > >> > > > > >> Once I've got them locally I'll submit a review request with those > > > > folders > > > > >> deleted... > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks > > > > >> Angus Turner > > > > >> angusisf...@gmail.com > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Alain Levesque < > > > > albon...@wavewatchers.org>wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> +1 since 2010 and it's never, never and did I mention never to > > late. > > > > >>> Bravo! > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Looking back over this, in preparation of doing some more work on > > > > this. > > > > >>> > Comments/questions inlined: > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > - Unusual CHANGES file: I usually see people adding issue > > numbers > > > > our > > > > >>> of > > > > >>> > > Jira > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > The Wave Jira is fairly incomplete wrt. actual changes that have > > > > >>> > occurred. (I would estimate about half of the changes have Jira > > > > >>> > tickets, all recent ones have review board numbers, but early > > > commits > > > > >>> > have neither). > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > As such, I saw it mentioned in the Common's guide that the use of > > > an > > > > >>> > 'svn log' instead was not strange. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > What do you suggest doing with this instead? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > - Example NOTICE file: > > > > >>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt > > > > >>> > , > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Ok. I shall rewrite this to be in that style. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Mockito is not mentioned with link as the others > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Will be added. :) > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > - server-config.xml, jsongadgets.json, jaas.config no license. > > > > Maybe > > > > >>> > others > > > > >>> > > too? Please utilize: http://creadur.apache.org/rat/ it's a > > great > > > > >>> tool to > > > > >>> > > check our licenses > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Rat looks useful. I will add a note to the release page and on > > the > > > > >>> > wiki, but I think it will be easiest to run standalone ATM. > > > (Perhaps > > > > >>> > it can be made part of the mavenized process though). > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > - request_codereview wrong license (Google Inc)? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > I am not even sure why this file hasn't been deleted yet. It was > > > only > > > > >>> > used for the old Google code reviews, and doesn't work with > > > > >>> > review-board. (And has no reason to be made to work with it). I > > > will > > > > >>> > remove this file. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > - files in /spec - allowed to distribute? No License given, > > where > > > > do > > > > >>> > these > > > > >>> > > files come from? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > These files are the whitepapers behind the conversation and > > > > federation > > > > >>> > protocols that Google wrote. Should I just add the license header > > > to > > > > >>> > them and leave them where they are? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > - src folder: we usually use org.apache prefix. Not seen any > > > > classes > > > > >>> with > > > > >>> > > that > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Heh. You are correct that the org.apache prefix is not used > > at-all. > > > > >>> > The majority of the code lives under the org.waveprotocol > > namespace > > > > >>> > (for legacy reasons). Changing to use org.apache is a fairly > > major > > > > >>> > undertaking, and would serve little purpose if the next release > > is > > > > >>> > going to be mavenized (with the full codebase relocation that > > > > brings). > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > - thirdparty: allowed to distribute? Check with compatible > > > > licenses. > > > > >>> Full > > > > >>> > > list whats working what not is here: > > > > >>> > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > My understanding from the work Angus did is that these are all > > > under > > > > >>> > licenses allowing distribution. We have an ant task (ant > > > > >>> > get-third-party) for the few we are not allowed to distribute. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > - Wave Logo (/war) seems to miss TM symbol. Please check: > > > > >>> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs.html > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > I assume you are referring to war/static/logo.png. Notably this > > is > > > a > > > > >>> > different image to the logo used on the incubator website. (Which > > > > also > > > > >>> > lacks a TM). > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Which of these should be used? Should they both have a trademark? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > - Whats the meaning of wave-0.4-release folder? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > A good question. I don't remember seeing that before, but it > > > > >>> > definitely shouldn't be there. :P > > > > >>> > (It appears my branch folder wasn't quite as clean as I thought). > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > - Whats the meaning of whitepapers folder? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > This holds the rest of the whitepapers, but these are older than > > > the > > > > >>> > ones in spec/, and are no-longer fully up-to-date wrt. the code. > > > > >>> > Though still often contain useful information explaining why > > > > something > > > > >>> > has been done in the way that it has. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Should I just add the license header and leave them there? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Alternatively, perhaps spec/ and whitepapers/ would be better > > > > licensed > > > > >>> > and moved into doc/? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Ali > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -- > > > > >>> Alain Levesque Wavewatchers > > > > >>> Wavyemailbeta:* > > > > >>> * > > > > >>> *Web Page <http://albonobo.com/> > > > > >>> * > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
