On 13/02/2012 14:09, Scott Wilson wrote:
On 13 Feb 2012, at 13:39, Ate Douma wrote:
On 02/13/2012 01:52 PM, Paul Sharples wrote:
On 10/02/2012 12:51, Scott Wilson wrote:
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.
(a) Scott has updated both the standalone and war versions of NOTICE. Does
anything need to be added to each of the LICENSE files, or are they okay?
Yes, the openjpa-all jar embedded LICENSE has several additional licenses which
need to be merged with the LICENSE file for the war& standalone.
For derby there are no additional LICENSE requirements, just the NOTICEs Scott
already added.
Done
With respect to the added notices: I see Scott more or less 'verbatim' appended
those from the openjpa-all and derby jars.
As result, there now are some duplications in the resulting NOTICE, like
"This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation
(http://www.apache.org/)" is now repeated 3x.
In addition, the start section of the notice for OpenJPA (which is a ASF
project) lists several other ASF projects being used. Those are not needed as
we're all ASF here, and the notice at the top of the file already covers
everything from the ASF itself.
And it list the SERP project too in this section, but for SERP there already is
a specific notice provided separately thereafter, so isn't needed in this
section as well.
My suggestion therefore is to remove this first section for the OpenJPA.
Done
Once the above is cleared up, AFAIK the NOTICE and LICENSE requirements should
be covered.
Yay!
Are we good to go now, or wait until tomorrow?
Paul
Ate
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
(b) Now done
Other than these last things, and the wrapping up of WOOKIE-314, IMO this
candidate is ready for release!
If point (A) above is now okay, then I think we are ready.
Paul
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
