You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wookie.apache.org by Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk> on 2011/11/04 17:11:15 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Wookie 0.9.1-incubating (General Incubation
List)
This is the second incubator release for Apache Wookie, with the
artifacts being versioned as 0.9.1-incubating.
We have already received 2 IPMC +1 votes (plus an additional 3 PPMC +1
votes) during the release voting on wookie-dev. (We need one more IPMC vote)
Vote thread:
http://incubator.markmail.org/search/?q=wookie-dev#query:wookie-dev%20date%3A201111%20+page:1+mid:5rm25ch2op32bnjt+state:results
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/
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)
Re: Licenses
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
On 11/05/2011 07:30 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 5 November 2011 14:01, Scott Wilson<sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5 Nov 2011, at 10:51, Ate Douma wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2011 11:29 AM, "Scott Wilson"<sc...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> OK just to be 100% clear...
>>
>> We need a generic copy of the BSD license text, and a generic copy of the MIT license text?
>>
>> Just thinking these will not then include the copyright notice of the specific code being reused. Or is that covered by the link to the original project?
>>
>
> Follow Ate's lead on this as he has been far more rigorous in his
> checks so we'll do it his way.
>
>> I'm happy to sort this out - I think Paul needs a break :-)
>
> Paul - it's a thankless task as anyone who has cut an early release
> knows. Thank you for your efforts, we are almost there.
>
>> (Also: Is the "licenses" folder in trunk obsolete?)
>
> My own preferred way of doing licence management is to have a file in
> the licences folder with the name of the library it applies to (e.g.
> "FooBar_license.txt") this means that to do an audit you just count
> the number of files in that directory and compare it with the number
> of third party libraries. NOTICE simply requires a reference to each
> third party library that requires an entry (not all do).
>
> However, under Ate's guidance we seem to have gone in a different
> direction. As I mention above, it's best to follow his lead here as he
> is clearly putting a great deal of effort into checking releases for
> us.
I'm happy to provide 'guidance' here, but note that the only thing I do is
trying to follow the Incubator Release Management guidelines themselves.
So, please *do* check those yourself as well ;)
With regards to what and where to put the 3rd party LICENSE texts, the Incubator
Release Management is nowadays quite specific in this regard (see also [1]):
Apache projects may distribute artifacts and documents as part of a release
which are not Apache Licensed. All such artifacts must comply with Apache's
3rd party licensing policy.
All the licenses on all the files to be included within a package should be
included in the LICENSE document. [...] The Apache License is at the top of
the LICENSE document. After that, the license for each non-Apache licensed
component is included, along with a clear explanation of which files that
license applies to.
The NOTICE document is for additional copyright and attribution statements
those licenses may require. A typical NOTICE document at a minimum includes a
copyright and attribution statement for The Apache Software Foundation.
Nothing else belongs in the NOTICE document.
And they give links to two good examples (HTTPD) how to do this (see online).
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
>
> Ross
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Licenses
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
On 11/05/2011 07:41 AM, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
> On 5 Nov 2011, at 14:30, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> On 5 November 2011 14:01, Scott Wilson<sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5 Nov 2011, at 10:51, Ate Douma wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 5, 2011 11:29 AM, "Scott Wilson"<sc...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> OK just to be 100% clear...
>>>
>>> We need a generic copy of the BSD license text, and a generic copy of the MIT license text?
>>>
>>> Just thinking these will not then include the copyright notice of the specific code being reused. Or is that covered by the link to the original project?
>>>
>>
>> Follow Ate's lead on this as he has been far more rigorous in his
>> checks so we'll do it his way.
>
> Thats certainly my preferred plan.
>
>>> I'm happy to sort this out - I think Paul needs a break :-)
>>
>> Paul - it's a thankless task as anyone who has cut an early release
>> knows. Thank you for your efforts, we are almost there.
>>
>>> (Also: Is the "licenses" folder in trunk obsolete?)
>>
>> My own preferred way of doing licence management is to have a file in
>> the licences folder with the name of the library it applies to (e.g.
>> "FooBar_license.txt") this means that to do an audit you just count
>> the number of files in that directory and compare it with the number
>> of third party libraries. NOTICE simply requires a reference to each
>> third party library that requires an entry (not all do).
>>
>> However, under Ate's guidance we seem to have gone in a different
>> direction. As I mention above, it's best to follow his lead here as he
>> is clearly putting a great deal of effort into checking releases for
>> us.
>
> +1 I'm happy to take Ate's lead on how we do this, hence if we don't need a /licenses I'd rather delete it than let it cause confusion.
+1 to remove the /licenses folder as we should use the Incubator release
management guidelines. Which calls for merging all 3rd party licenses into the
one LICENSE file only.
>
> (I think Paul's proposal for how we make releases from 0.9.2 onwards should also make things easier)
>
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
Re: Licenses (was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Wookie 0.9.1-incubating (General Incubation List))
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 5 Nov 2011, at 14:30, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 5 November 2011 14:01, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5 Nov 2011, at 10:51, Ate Douma wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2011 11:29 AM, "Scott Wilson" <sc...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> OK just to be 100% clear...
>>
>> We need a generic copy of the BSD license text, and a generic copy of the MIT license text?
>>
>> Just thinking these will not then include the copyright notice of the specific code being reused. Or is that covered by the link to the original project?
>>
>
> Follow Ate's lead on this as he has been far more rigorous in his
> checks so we'll do it his way.
Thats certainly my preferred plan.
>> I'm happy to sort this out - I think Paul needs a break :-)
>
> Paul - it's a thankless task as anyone who has cut an early release
> knows. Thank you for your efforts, we are almost there.
>
>> (Also: Is the "licenses" folder in trunk obsolete?)
>
> My own preferred way of doing licence management is to have a file in
> the licences folder with the name of the library it applies to (e.g.
> "FooBar_license.txt") this means that to do an audit you just count
> the number of files in that directory and compare it with the number
> of third party libraries. NOTICE simply requires a reference to each
> third party library that requires an entry (not all do).
>
> However, under Ate's guidance we seem to have gone in a different
> direction. As I mention above, it's best to follow his lead here as he
> is clearly putting a great deal of effort into checking releases for
> us.
+1 I'm happy to take Ate's lead on how we do this, hence if we don't need a /licenses I'd rather delete it than let it cause confusion.
(I think Paul's proposal for how we make releases from 0.9.2 onwards should also make things easier)
>
> Ross
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Licenses (was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Wookie 0.9.1-incubating
(General Incubation List))
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 5 November 2011 14:01, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5 Nov 2011, at 10:51, Ate Douma wrote:
>
>> On Nov 5, 2011 11:29 AM, "Scott Wilson" <sc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> OK just to be 100% clear...
>
> We need a generic copy of the BSD license text, and a generic copy of the MIT license text?
>
> Just thinking these will not then include the copyright notice of the specific code being reused. Or is that covered by the link to the original project?
>
Follow Ate's lead on this as he has been far more rigorous in his
checks so we'll do it his way.
> I'm happy to sort this out - I think Paul needs a break :-)
Paul - it's a thankless task as anyone who has cut an early release
knows. Thank you for your efforts, we are almost there.
> (Also: Is the "licenses" folder in trunk obsolete?)
My own preferred way of doing licence management is to have a file in
the licences folder with the name of the library it applies to (e.g.
"FooBar_license.txt") this means that to do an audit you just count
the number of files in that directory and compare it with the number
of third party libraries. NOTICE simply requires a reference to each
third party library that requires an entry (not all do).
However, under Ate's guidance we seem to have gone in a different
direction. As I mention above, it's best to follow his lead here as he
is clearly putting a great deal of effort into checking releases for
us.
Ross
>
>
>
>
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Licenses (was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Wookie 0.9.1-incubating (General Incubation List))
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 5 Nov 2011, at 10:51, Ate Douma wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2011 11:29 AM, "Scott Wilson" <sc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
OK just to be 100% clear...
We need a generic copy of the BSD license text, and a generic copy of the MIT license text?
Just thinking these will not then include the copyright notice of the specific code being reused. Or is that covered by the link to the original project?
I'm happy to sort this out - I think Paul needs a break :-)
(Also: Is the "licenses" folder in trunk obsolete?)
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Wookie 0.9.1-incubating (General Incubation List)
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
On Nov 5, 2011 11:29 AM, "Scott Wilson" <sc...@gmail.com>
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" <at...@douma.nu> 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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Wookie 0.9.1-incubating (General Incubation List)
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
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" <at...@douma.nu> 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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Wookie 0.9.1-incubating (General Incubation List)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 4, 2011 10:15 PM, "Ate Douma" <at...@douma.nu> 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.
> 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.
> 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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Wookie 0.9.1-incubating (General Incubation
List)
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
On 11/04/2011 06:32 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 4 November 2011 16:11, Paul Sharples<p....@bolton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> This is the second incubator release for Apache Wookie, with the artifacts
>> being versioned as 0.9.1-incubating.
>>
>> We have already received 2 IPMC +1 votes (plus an additional 3 PPMC +1
>> votes) during the release voting on wookie-dev. (We need one more IPMC vote)
>>
>> Vote thread:
>> http://incubator.markmail.org/search/?q=wookie-dev#query:wookie-dev%20date%3A201111%20+page:1+mid:5rm25ch2op32bnjt+state:results
>>
>> 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).
>
Right, it looks like sebb is right: the LICENSE file has a few references to 3rd
party licenses for which it doesn't have their text copied in :(
I failed as a mentor here. While I pointed out several things to fix with the
NOTICE files, I overlooked this part of the LICENSE files. But as the LICENSE
file does copy other 3rd party license texts, I didn't notice these and simply
assumed all were still present.
Clearly I wasn't as thorough as I should have...
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?
At any rate, while I know of quite a few TLP releases which have similar (if not
worse) omissions and still got released, the rules within the Incubator are more
strict, as well as some of the reviewers.
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...
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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Wookie 0.9.1-incubating (General Incubation List)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 November 2011 16:11, Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk> wrote:
> This is the second incubator release for Apache Wookie, with the artifacts
> being versioned as 0.9.1-incubating.
>
> We have already received 2 IPMC +1 votes (plus an additional 3 PPMC +1
> votes) during the release voting on wookie-dev. (We need one more IPMC vote)
>
> Vote thread:
> http://incubator.markmail.org/search/?q=wookie-dev#query:wookie-dev%20date%3A201111%20+page:1+mid:5rm25ch2op32bnjt+state:results
>
> 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).
> 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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Wookie 0.9.1-incubating (General Incubation
List)
Posted by Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk>.
This VOTE has failed due to incomplete LICENSE files.
On 04/11/2011 16:11, Paul Sharples wrote:
> This is the second incubator release for Apache Wookie, with the
> artifacts being versioned as 0.9.1-incubating.
>
> We have already received 2 IPMC +1 votes (plus an additional 3 PPMC +1
> votes) during the release voting on wookie-dev. (We need one more IPMC
> vote)
>
> Vote thread:
> http://incubator.markmail.org/search/?q=wookie-dev#query:wookie-dev%20date%3A201111%20+page:1+mid:5rm25ch2op32bnjt+state:results
>
>
> 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/
>
> 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)
>
>
>
[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Wookie 0.9.1-incubating (General Incubation
List)
Posted by Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk>.
This VOTE has failed due to incomplete LICENSE files.
On 04/11/2011 16:11, Paul Sharples wrote:
> This is the second incubator release for Apache Wookie, with the
> artifacts being versioned as 0.9.1-incubating.
>
> We have already received 2 IPMC +1 votes (plus an additional 3 PPMC +1
> votes) during the release voting on wookie-dev. (We need one more IPMC
> vote)
>
> Vote thread:
> http://incubator.markmail.org/search/?q=wookie-dev#query:wookie-dev%20date%3A201111%20+page:1+mid:5rm25ch2op32bnjt+state:results
>
>
> 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/
>
> 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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Wookie 0.9.1-incubating (General Incubation List)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 November 2011 16:11, Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk> wrote:
> This is the second incubator release for Apache Wookie, with the artifacts
> being versioned as 0.9.1-incubating.
>
> We have already received 2 IPMC +1 votes (plus an additional 3 PPMC +1
> votes) during the release voting on wookie-dev. (We need one more IPMC vote)
>
> Vote thread:
> http://incubator.markmail.org/search/?q=wookie-dev#query:wookie-dev%20date%3A201111%20+page:1+mid:5rm25ch2op32bnjt+state:results
>
> 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).
> 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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>