On 10 Feb 2012, at 12:23, Ate Douma wrote: > On 02/10/2012 01:18 PM, Ate Douma wrote: >> On 02/10/2012 11:04 AM, Paul Sharples wrote: >>> On 09/02/2012 11:51, Ate Douma wrote: >>>> I'm trying to review the current wookie trunk on LICENSE and NOTICE >>>> requirements for the next release. >>> >>> All Jira issues are now dealt with and the Rat report now looks ok. >>> Do we need more time for reviewing or are we ready to cut a release? > > It also seems to me WOOKIE-314 should be fixed, right? > Note that it doesn't have its Fix Version set, which makes it not show up on > the issues for 0.9.2
I don't think we need to hold up this release for it - I've set it to fix in 0.10 > >> >> I'd like to give it one more thorough review, which I'll try to finish before >> end of this working day. >> >> Ate >> >> p.s. I suggest someone adds the /release folder to svn:ignore. >> It now shows up as a svn modification. >> >>> >>> Paul >>> >>>> >>>> First question I have is: how do I 'build' a release binary? >>>> From ant -p I don't see a build target which should do that. >>>> >>>> To be able to properly review what will end up in the binary release, I >>>> need >>>> to be able to build that myself, or have to wait until a candidate is >>>> prepared >>>> by others. I'd like to do it myself :) >>>> >>>> It would also be nice if a release-management kind of documentation could >>>> be >>>> published on the website, kind of similar to what we have for Rave [1]. >>>> >>>> As a start I looked briefly at the root NOTICE file which raises a few >>>> suggestions and questions already: >>>> >>>> - Bubbles.wgt notice >>>> I looked the provided url up but couldn't find any license or notice >>>> whatsoever for inclusion/usage of this widget, and neither does the .wgt >>>> has >>>> anything embedded. Where did this *required* notice come from (note: only >>>> *required* notices should be added to the NOTICE file) >>>> >>>> - many/most of the other notices seems to be for MIT/BSD licensed stuff >>>> Those should not need notices, unless (extra) explicitly required and/or >>>> coming with a NOTICE (file) of their own. In general, if for these products >>>> their license (with copyright statement) is included in our LICENSE file, >>>> there is no need to also add a notice in the NOTICE file. AFAIK the >>>> /LICENSE >>>> file already takes care of that properly, +1 on that. >>>> >>>> In general, the NOTICE file should not be used for providing friendly >>>> credits. >>>> This file has a legal purpose only. >>>> >>>> If we want to give friendly but non-required credits, the README file >>>> can/should be used for that instead. >>>> >>>> Anything we add to our NOTICE (required or not) we force upon our >>>> downstream >>>> users to keep as specified by our AS 2.0 license section 4d. >>>> This is why more recently there is more attention for making sure we only >>>> put >>>> really required entries in the NOTICE file, to lessen the burden for our >>>> downstream users. >>>> >>>> Ate >>>> >>> >> >
