On 4 Nov 2011, at 23:03, Ross Gardler wrote: > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Nov 4, 2011 10:15 PM, "Ate Douma" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 11/04/2011 06:32 PM, sebb wrote: >>> >>> > > ... > >>>> Result: >>>> > http://incubator.markmail.org/search/?q=wookie-dev#query:wookie-dev%20date%3A201111%20+page:1+mid:xpzregppdevaipca+state:results >>>> >>>> Svn source tag: >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wookie/tags/0.9.1-incubating/ >>> >>> >>> -1 >>> >>> The LICENSE file looks incomplete - it should contain copies of all >>> the 3rd party licenses, not just URLs (although those are useful). >>> > > ... > >> >> I failed as a mentor here. > > Ditto. Although I thought this was acceptable. I know of a number of > projects which do this.
Well, the only licenses that aren't included in the actual LICENSE file itself for the source release are: - third-party ASL 2.0 - third-party BSD - third-party MIT the JSON license is included in full. For the binaries, its the same story - CDDL, JDOM, ICU, Eclipse licenses are transcluded in the LICENSE text, while MIT, BSD and ASL are not. So is the omission that: 1. a copy of the BSD and MIT licenses must also be transcluded OR: 2. the 10 additional copies of the MIT license and 3 additional copies of the BSD license must be transcluded as well as another copy of ASL from the DWR project (they are all scattered around in various locations, mostly in the widget folders where they are used) OR 3. ??? > >> I'm puzzled though how this regression happened. The 0.9.0 release did > have all 3rd party license texts copied. Anyone can shed a light on why? > > This, and other regressions, puzzle me too. they imply that the changes in > the release branch were not merged into trunk. No, the release is exactly the same as in trunk. > >> Just as an addition point of information, not as an intended point of > action: >> For the ASF a release vote requires only 3x +1 votes. For a PPMC this > means it requires 3x +1 from IPMC members. >> >> However, *releases may not be vetoed* ... [1] >> >> If a 3x +1 is received, it is the responsibility of the Release Manager > to decide if the release is accepted. And can do so, even with a number of > -1 votes... > > Important clarification. > >> I'm not suggesting to ignore the -1 from sebb, as I think he does have a > valid point, and normally that should be enough to pull back a vote. >> But formally this -1 vote is not a veto. >> >> Regards, >> >> Ate >> >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >> section "Votes on Package Releases" >> >> >> >> >>>> Release notes: >>>> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wookie/tags/0.9.1-incubating/RELEASE_NOTES >>>> >>>> Release artifacts: >>>> http://people.apache.org/~psharples/wookie/staging-area/0p9p1/rc4/ >>>> >>>> PGP release keys: >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wookie/KEYS >>>> >>>> Vote open for 72 hours. >>>> >>>> [ ] +1 approve >>>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>
