On Nov 5, 2011 11:29 AM, "Scott Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >
This. AFAIK the 0.9.0 release did this already correct. > 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. > Then something got lost somewhere else. Trunk then also is wrong. > > > >> 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] > >>> > >> >
