You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it> on 2006/10/08 18:35:28 UTC
Test Snapshot Release 4?
David, all,
when will we vote for a new Test Snapshot Release?
Here is a list of open tasks (some of them are minor and/or optional),
based on feedback from the Incubator's guys:
*** From Leo Simons ***
1) You're shipping various libraries and stuff which I know include
NOTICE files of their own, but those notices are not found or referenced
anywhere outside their jars (for example ant.jar has a
META-INF/NOTICE.txt). I would say the NOTICE file should point to those
other notice files that exist somewhere deep within such a big
distribution, but I think that's maybe not a legal requirement.
2) I downloaded the tgz. I always get annoyed when a software release
doesn't extract into an obvious name. Eg `tar zxf apache-of* && cd
apache-of*` should work. Probably a religious subject.
3) the statistical sample (random clicking) of files I opened all have
"copyright 2001-2006 The ASF". I suspect that's wrong, since IIRC ofbiz
wasn't @ apache in 2001. The year 2001 should probably be replaced by
the year when development of ofbiz started @ apache.
4) even if you don't branch, you should really do an `svn tag` for any
release (even RCs). Tagging is basically free, and it provides that much
more clarity on 'what is what'
*** From Robert Burren Donkin ***
5) FYI a source distribution is required but i'm assume that you know
how to svn export
And here are my comments:
#1: completing the NOTICE file is the last big task that we have to
do... and I'm not sure to understand what we have to do to complete it.
#2, #4 are suggestions that we can include to the TSR process (as
documented in the doc site) and can be considered when preparing the
release files.
#5: even if I don't agree with some of Robert's arguments for asking
this, I think that we can easily create such a file for the release
#3: if you want I can work on this... what is the correct copyright
notice that should be used instead?
Jacopo
Removing author related information WAS Re: Test Snapshot Release
4?
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>.
Thanks Marco,
your patch is in svn rev. 454293
Jacopo
Marco Risaliti wrote:
> Hi Jacopo,
>
> first of all thanks for your work of removing author information that
> you have done today.
> I have update my local build and I have seen some more information of
> author is remaining on the sources and so I will send you this patch.
> I'm sorry but I was not able to help you during the day.
> I have seen also into InventoryServices.java a reference
> to http://jira.undersunconsulting.com/browse/OFBIZ-662 and I don't if it
> must be removed from the source file.
>
> Thanks again
> Marco
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Il giorno 08/ott/06, alle ore 18:35, Jacopo Cappellato ha scritto:
>
>> David, all,
>>
>> when will we vote for a new Test Snapshot Release?
>>
>> Here is a list of open tasks (some of them are minor and/or optional),
>> based on feedback from the Incubator's guys:
>>
>> *** From Leo Simons ***
>>
>> 1) You're shipping various libraries and stuff which I know include
>> NOTICE files of their own, but those notices are not found or
>> referenced anywhere outside their jars (for example ant.jar has a
>> META-INF/NOTICE.txt). I would say the NOTICE file should point to
>> those other notice files that exist somewhere deep within such a big
>> distribution, but I think that's maybe not a legal requirement.
>>
>> 2) I downloaded the tgz. I always get annoyed when a software release
>> doesn't extract into an obvious name. Eg `tar zxf apache-of* && cd
>> apache-of*` should work. Probably a religious subject.
>>
>> 3) the statistical sample (random clicking) of files I opened all have
>> "copyright 2001-2006 The ASF". I suspect that's wrong, since IIRC
>> ofbiz wasn't @ apache in 2001. The year 2001 should probably be
>> replaced by the year when development of ofbiz started @ apache.
>>
>> 4) even if you don't branch, you should really do an `svn tag` for any
>> release (even RCs). Tagging is basically free, and it provides that
>> much more clarity on 'what is what'
>>
>> *** From Robert Burren Donkin ***
>>
>> 5) FYI a source distribution is required but i'm assume that you know
>> how to svn export
>>
>> And here are my comments:
>>
>> #1: completing the NOTICE file is the last big task that we have to
>> do... and I'm not sure to understand what we have to do to complete it.
>>
>> #2, #4 are suggestions that we can include to the TSR process (as
>> documented in the doc site) and can be considered when preparing the
>> release files.
>>
>> #5: even if I don't agree with some of Robert's arguments for asking
>> this, I think that we can easily create such a file for the release
>>
>> #3: if you want I can work on this... what is the correct copyright
>> notice that should be used instead?
>>
>> Jacopo
>
Re: Test Snapshot Release 4?
Posted by Marco Risaliti <mr...@libero.it>.
Hi Jacopo,
first of all thanks for your work of removing author information that
you have done today.
I have update my local build and I have seen some more information of
author is remaining on the sources and so I will send you this patch.
I'm sorry but I was not able to help you during the day.
I have seen also into InventoryServices.java a reference to http://
jira.undersunconsulting.com/browse/OFBIZ-662 and I don't if it must
be removed from the source file.
Thanks again
Marco
Il giorno 08/ott/06, alle ore 18:35, Jacopo Cappellato ha scritto:
> David, all,
>
> when will we vote for a new Test Snapshot Release?
>
> Here is a list of open tasks (some of them are minor and/or
> optional), based on feedback from the Incubator's guys:
>
> *** From Leo Simons ***
>
> 1) You're shipping various libraries and stuff which I know include
> NOTICE files of their own, but those notices are not found or
> referenced anywhere outside their jars (for example ant.jar has a
> META-INF/NOTICE.txt). I would say the NOTICE file should point to
> those other notice files that exist somewhere deep within such a
> big distribution, but I think that's maybe not a legal requirement.
>
> 2) I downloaded the tgz. I always get annoyed when a software
> release doesn't extract into an obvious name. Eg `tar zxf apache-
> of* && cd apache-of*` should work. Probably a religious subject.
>
> 3) the statistical sample (random clicking) of files I opened all
> have "copyright 2001-2006 The ASF". I suspect that's wrong, since
> IIRC ofbiz wasn't @ apache in 2001. The year 2001 should probably
> be replaced by the year when development of ofbiz started @ apache.
>
> 4) even if you don't branch, you should really do an `svn tag` for
> any release (even RCs). Tagging is basically free, and it provides
> that much more clarity on 'what is what'
>
> *** From Robert Burren Donkin ***
>
> 5) FYI a source distribution is required but i'm assume that you know
> how to svn export
>
> And here are my comments:
>
> #1: completing the NOTICE file is the last big task that we have to
> do... and I'm not sure to understand what we have to do to complete
> it.
>
> #2, #4 are suggestions that we can include to the TSR process (as
> documented in the doc site) and can be considered when preparing
> the release files.
>
> #5: even if I don't agree with some of Robert's arguments for
> asking this, I think that we can easily create such a file for the
> release
>
> #3: if you want I can work on this... what is the correct copyright
> notice that should be used instead?
>
> Jacopo
Re: Test Snapshot Release 4?
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>.
I'm sorry, here is the Geronimo's NOTICE file.
Jacopo
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> About the NOTICE file:
>
> I've added a new column to the page with the OFBiz's library list:
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Libraries+Included+in+OFBiz
>
> where we can put information about the notice needed.
>
> I put there the one for JDBM; then I've tried to do some research for
> other libraries and I've added my comments there: I wrote "None" where I
> think that no notice is needed, and "?????" where I think that maybe we
> need to add something...
> all in all I still don't understand exactly what to do, I'm sorry.
>
> Finally I've downloaded the NOTICE file of the Apache Geronimo project
> (attached to this message) to see an example of a notice file from a big
> project (with a lot of external libraries included).
> I think it's interesting (for example they also include the notice for
> the JDBM jar); one think that concerned me is that they have added a
> notice message for the Derby jars (that are licensed under the
> ASL2.0)... does this mean that we have to review the licenses of all the
> jars licensed under Apache License, because they could ask to include a
> notice message?
>
> Jacopo
>
Re: Test Snapshot Release 4?
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ti...@sastau.it>.
About the NOTICE file:
I've added a new column to the page with the OFBiz's library list:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Libraries+Included+in+OFBiz
where we can put information about the notice needed.
I put there the one for JDBM; then I've tried to do some research for
other libraries and I've added my comments there: I wrote "None" where I
think that no notice is needed, and "?????" where I think that maybe we
need to add something...
all in all I still don't understand exactly what to do, I'm sorry.
Finally I've downloaded the NOTICE file of the Apache Geronimo project
(attached to this message) to see an example of a notice file from a big
project (with a lot of external libraries included).
I think it's interesting (for example they also include the notice for
the JDBM jar); one think that concerned me is that they have added a
notice message for the Derby jars (that are licensed under the
ASL2.0)... does this mean that we have to review the licenses of all the
jars licensed under Apache License, because they could ask to include a
notice message?
Jacopo
David E Jones wrote:
>
> On Oct 8, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>> David, all,
>>
>> when will we vote for a new Test Snapshot Release?
>>
>> Here is a list of open tasks (some of them are minor and/or optional),
>> based on feedback from the Incubator's guys:
>>
>> *** From Leo Simons ***
>>
>> 1) You're shipping various libraries and stuff which I know include
>> NOTICE files of their own, but those notices are not found or
>> referenced anywhere outside their jars (for example ant.jar has a
>> META-INF/NOTICE.txt). I would say the NOTICE file should point to
>> those other notice files that exist somewhere deep within such a big
>> distribution, but I think that's maybe not a legal requirement.
>>
>> 2) I downloaded the tgz. I always get annoyed when a software release
>> doesn't extract into an obvious name. Eg `tar zxf apache-of* && cd
>> apache-of*` should work. Probably a religious subject.
>>
>> 3) the statistical sample (random clicking) of files I opened all have
>> "copyright 2001-2006 The ASF". I suspect that's wrong, since IIRC
>> ofbiz wasn't @ apache in 2001. The year 2001 should probably be
>> replaced by the year when development of ofbiz started @ apache.
>>
>> 4) even if you don't branch, you should really do an `svn tag` for any
>> release (even RCs). Tagging is basically free, and it provides that
>> much more clarity on 'what is what'
>>
>> *** From Robert Burren Donkin ***
>>
>> 5) FYI a source distribution is required but i'm assume that you know
>> how to svn export
>>
>> And here are my comments:
>>
>> #1: completing the NOTICE file is the last big task that we have to
>> do... and I'm not sure to understand what we have to do to complete it.
>
> This is the big one. I started working on this and trying to get a
> better idea of what is required in it. According to the AL2 text it
> sounds like we need to include all notices in NOTICE files of other
> projects included in OFBiz, plus any other notices required by any of
> the licenses for projects we include, independent of whatever NOTICE
> that project may or may not have.
>
> For the second part there was one good example with JDBM where it says
> in the license that if you include it in a larger work you have to have
> a "notice" that the project is included in the larger and where it comes
> from, hence the current JDBM notice. We should review the licenses in
> the LICENSE file and see if any others require this...
>
> I haven't started copying NOTICE content from other project's NOTICE
> files into our NOTICE file, so that needs to be done. This is the bulk
> of the effort I think.
>
> Once we do those 2 things we'll want to send a message to the
> general@incubator list and ask for feedback on just the NOTICE and
> LICENSE files, and then once we get positive feedback we can do another
> the TS4.
>
>> #2, #4 are suggestions that we can include to the TSR process (as
>> documented in the doc site) and can be considered when preparing the
>> release files.
>
> #2 should be easy. I'm not sure if I like the idea of tagging test
> snapshots. These have almost no value for future reference, and I don't
> want to imply that they do because someone might take that tag as a
> stamp of approval for use as a basis for customization or other efforts...
>
> When we do a real release, then yes we'll want to branch.
>
>> #5: even if I don't agree with some of Robert's arguments for asking
>> this, I think that we can easily create such a file for the release
>
> This is interesting... but maybe more for the framework than the
> complete package. We do have to distribute the source, but as far as I
> could tell from follow on discussion a separate archive is not required
> and many projects at the ASF don't do it.
>
>> #3: if you want I can work on this... what is the correct copyright
>> notice that should be used instead?
>
> I'm not sure about this one either... Technically we all granted a
> copyright license with out CLAs and that goes back to whenever we
> started writing the code, which was 2001. Not all files go back to that
> date so for many this is not accurate. Still, my vote is to not touch it
> unless someone really thinks this is important and wants to crusade on
> it a bit. That crusade would involved asking the ASF legal group and
> getting a more official opinion/mandate on it...
>
> So, in short, I'd say that the most important thing is the NOTICE file
> which still needs a bit of work. The #2 thing for the directory in the
> archive should be easy to accommodate. Other than that I think we not
> worry about it right now. That's just my opinion though...
>
> -David
Re: Test Snapshot Release 4?
Posted by David E Jones <jo...@undersunconsulting.com>.
On Oct 8, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> David, all,
>
> when will we vote for a new Test Snapshot Release?
>
> Here is a list of open tasks (some of them are minor and/or
> optional), based on feedback from the Incubator's guys:
>
> *** From Leo Simons ***
>
> 1) You're shipping various libraries and stuff which I know include
> NOTICE files of their own, but those notices are not found or
> referenced anywhere outside their jars (for example ant.jar has a
> META-INF/NOTICE.txt). I would say the NOTICE file should point to
> those other notice files that exist somewhere deep within such a
> big distribution, but I think that's maybe not a legal requirement.
>
> 2) I downloaded the tgz. I always get annoyed when a software
> release doesn't extract into an obvious name. Eg `tar zxf apache-
> of* && cd apache-of*` should work. Probably a religious subject.
>
> 3) the statistical sample (random clicking) of files I opened all
> have "copyright 2001-2006 The ASF". I suspect that's wrong, since
> IIRC ofbiz wasn't @ apache in 2001. The year 2001 should probably
> be replaced by the year when development of ofbiz started @ apache.
>
> 4) even if you don't branch, you should really do an `svn tag` for
> any release (even RCs). Tagging is basically free, and it provides
> that much more clarity on 'what is what'
>
> *** From Robert Burren Donkin ***
>
> 5) FYI a source distribution is required but i'm assume that you know
> how to svn export
>
> And here are my comments:
>
> #1: completing the NOTICE file is the last big task that we have to
> do... and I'm not sure to understand what we have to do to complete
> it.
This is the big one. I started working on this and trying to get a
better idea of what is required in it. According to the AL2 text it
sounds like we need to include all notices in NOTICE files of other
projects included in OFBiz, plus any other notices required by any of
the licenses for projects we include, independent of whatever NOTICE
that project may or may not have.
For the second part there was one good example with JDBM where it
says in the license that if you include it in a larger work you have
to have a "notice" that the project is included in the larger and
where it comes from, hence the current JDBM notice. We should review
the licenses in the LICENSE file and see if any others require this...
I haven't started copying NOTICE content from other project's NOTICE
files into our NOTICE file, so that needs to be done. This is the
bulk of the effort I think.
Once we do those 2 things we'll want to send a message to the
general@incubator list and ask for feedback on just the NOTICE and
LICENSE files, and then once we get positive feedback we can do
another the TS4.
> #2, #4 are suggestions that we can include to the TSR process (as
> documented in the doc site) and can be considered when preparing
> the release files.
#2 should be easy. I'm not sure if I like the idea of tagging test
snapshots. These have almost no value for future reference, and I
don't want to imply that they do because someone might take that tag
as a stamp of approval for use as a basis for customization or other
efforts...
When we do a real release, then yes we'll want to branch.
> #5: even if I don't agree with some of Robert's arguments for
> asking this, I think that we can easily create such a file for the
> release
This is interesting... but maybe more for the framework than the
complete package. We do have to distribute the source, but as far as
I could tell from follow on discussion a separate archive is not
required and many projects at the ASF don't do it.
> #3: if you want I can work on this... what is the correct copyright
> notice that should be used instead?
I'm not sure about this one either... Technically we all granted a
copyright license with out CLAs and that goes back to whenever we
started writing the code, which was 2001. Not all files go back to
that date so for many this is not accurate. Still, my vote is to not
touch it unless someone really thinks this is important and wants to
crusade on it a bit. That crusade would involved asking the ASF legal
group and getting a more official opinion/mandate on it...
So, in short, I'd say that the most important thing is the NOTICE
file which still needs a bit of work. The #2 thing for the directory
in the archive should be easy to accommodate. Other than that I think
we not worry about it right now. That's just my opinion though...
-David