Upayavira: Thanks for your explanation. A doubt: if everybody else voted "-1" and you got three "+1" from PMC, the release would be approved?
http://alfredo.abambres.com *"Moving, always moving, and living inside movement". Rainer Maria Rilke* On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > 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/> > > > > > >>> * > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
