On 10 Feb 2012, at 12:44, 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? >> >> I'd like to give it one more thorough review, which I'll try to finish before >> end of this working day. > > I found the following remaining issues with the NOTICE and LICENSE files in > standalone and war distributions: > > - both bundle openjpa, which has several/additional NOTICE and LICENSE > attributions which should be merged > - standalone in addition bundles derby which also adds to the NOTICE and > LICENSE requirements > > So, for both openjpa and derby, check their embedded NOTICE/LICENSE files.
I'll get onto that now. > > I also noticed the RELEASE_NOTES document hasn't been updated to include the > 0.9.2 issues fixed. As that list isn't complete either this task probably > should be done when everything else is ready. Yep, I'll create a task in Jira so we don't forget > > Other than these last things, and the wrapping up of WOOKIE-314, IMO this > candidate is ready for release! > > Regards, Ate > >> >> 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 >>>> >>> >> >
