You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by Alex Parvulescu <al...@apache.org> on 2012/05/02 20:23:09 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 0.2 release is available at:
http://people.apache.org/~alexparvulescu/oak/0.2/
The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/tags/jackrabbit-oak-0.2/
The SHA1 checksum of the archive is
c89e141114d130f646e30862850660a5e27ded03.
A staged Maven repository is available for review at:
https://repository.apache.org/
The command for running automated checks against this release candidate is:
$ sh check-release.sh alexparvulescu 0.2
c89e141114d130f646e30862850660a5e27ded03
Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2.
The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
+1 from me,
best,
alex
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Yes, that was a mistake. I wrote those two classes originally, so I can
> relicense them. I have done that in revision 1333334.
Perfect, thanks!
PS. Thanks also to Michael for updating the rat exclusion settings.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Posted by Alex Parvulescu <al...@gmail.com>.
ah, forgot. I also have to rollback the version from 0.3-SNAPSHOT to
0.2.1-SNAPSHOT that also includes the changes.
alex
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Alex Parvulescu
<al...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I'd actually prefer to retry the release
> Cool, we can do that.
>
> The simplest way is to also include OAK-82 (this morning's commit) so we
> have a clean trunk for 0.2.1.
>
> What should the release notes say about the licencing issue?
>
> alex
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3.5.12 9:08, Alex Parvulescu wrote:
>>
>>> So we can consider the vote has failed due to the licencing issue.
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I see that we already have one commit on the trunk, so in order to
>>> minimize
>>> the noise maybe cutting 0.3 at the end of may is a better option?
>>>
>>
>> If it is only about the noise I don't mind. I'd actually prefer to retry
>> the release. This will get us going with the process and help us sorting
>> out potential issues with it. If it is a matter of resources and time, I'm
>> fine with skipping it.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> alex
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Mueller<mu...@adobe.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The troublesome files come with the following header:
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Copyright 2004-2011 H2 Group. Multiple-Licensed under the H2 License,
>>>>> * Version 1.0, and under the Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0
>>>>> * (http://h2database.com/html/**license.html<http://h2database.com/html/license.html>
>>>>> ).
>>>>> * Initial Developer: H2 Group
>>>>> */
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose they may well have originally written by Thomas and that he
>>>>> could simply relicense them to the ASF, but until then we should treat
>>>>> them as EPLv1 code and mention that in the LICENSE.txt file.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that was a mistake. I wrote those two classes originally, so I can
>>>> relicense them. I have done that in revision 1333334.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Posted by Alex Parvulescu <al...@gmail.com>.
ok, I'm on it :)
Thanks Jukka, good point about the release plugin.
Release vote will follow shortly.
alex
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Alex Parvulescu
> <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The simplest way is to also include OAK-82 (this morning's commit) so we
> > have a clean trunk for 0.2.1.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> > What should the release notes say about the licencing issue?
>
> Something like "The earlier 0.2 release candidate was rejected because
> of a minor licensing issue that is now resolved." should be fine. Or
> just not mention it at all. It's only relevant as an explanation of
> why we're releasing 0.2.1 instead of 0.2 after the 0.1 release.
>
> > ah, forgot. I also have to rollback the version from 0.3-SNAPSHOT to
> > 0.2.1-SNAPSHOT that also includes the changes.
>
> The Maven release plugin allows you to set the release version to
> 0.2.1 even when you start from 0.3-SNAPSHOT. Just tell it to reset the
> snapshot version back to 0.3-SNAPSHOT after cutting the release.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Alex Parvulescu
<al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The simplest way is to also include OAK-82 (this morning's commit) so we
> have a clean trunk for 0.2.1.
Sounds good.
> What should the release notes say about the licencing issue?
Something like "The earlier 0.2 release candidate was rejected because
of a minor licensing issue that is now resolved." should be fine. Or
just not mention it at all. It's only relevant as an explanation of
why we're releasing 0.2.1 instead of 0.2 after the 0.1 release.
> ah, forgot. I also have to rollback the version from 0.3-SNAPSHOT to
> 0.2.1-SNAPSHOT that also includes the changes.
The Maven release plugin allows you to set the release version to
0.2.1 even when you start from 0.3-SNAPSHOT. Just tell it to reset the
snapshot version back to 0.3-SNAPSHOT after cutting the release.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Posted by Alex Parvulescu <al...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
> I'd actually prefer to retry the release
Cool, we can do that.
The simplest way is to also include OAK-82 (this morning's commit) so we
have a clean trunk for 0.2.1.
What should the release notes say about the licencing issue?
alex
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 3.5.12 9:08, Alex Parvulescu wrote:
>
>> So we can consider the vote has failed due to the licencing issue.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>
>> I see that we already have one commit on the trunk, so in order to
>> minimize
>> the noise maybe cutting 0.3 at the end of may is a better option?
>>
>
> If it is only about the noise I don't mind. I'd actually prefer to retry
> the release. This will get us going with the process and help us sorting
> out potential issues with it. If it is a matter of resources and time, I'm
> fine with skipping it.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>> alex
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Mueller<mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The troublesome files come with the following header:
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * Copyright 2004-2011 H2 Group. Multiple-Licensed under the H2 License,
>>>> * Version 1.0, and under the Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0
>>>> * (http://h2database.com/html/**license.html<http://h2database.com/html/license.html>
>>>> ).
>>>> * Initial Developer: H2 Group
>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> I suppose they may well have originally written by Thomas and that he
>>>> could simply relicense them to the ASF, but until then we should treat
>>>> them as EPLv1 code and mention that in the LICENSE.txt file.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that was a mistake. I wrote those two classes originally, so I can
>>> relicense them. I have done that in revision 1333334.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Posted by Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org>.
On 3.5.12 9:08, Alex Parvulescu wrote:
> So we can consider the vote has failed due to the licencing issue.
Yes.
>
> I see that we already have one commit on the trunk, so in order to minimize
> the noise maybe cutting 0.3 at the end of may is a better option?
If it is only about the noise I don't mind. I'd actually prefer to retry
the release. This will get us going with the process and help us sorting
out potential issues with it. If it is a matter of resources and time,
I'm fine with skipping it.
Michael
>
> alex
>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Mueller<mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> The troublesome files come with the following header:
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Copyright 2004-2011 H2 Group. Multiple-Licensed under the H2 License,
>>> * Version 1.0, and under the Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0
>>> * (http://h2database.com/html/license.html).
>>> * Initial Developer: H2 Group
>>> */
>>>
>>> I suppose they may well have originally written by Thomas and that he
>>> could simply relicense them to the ASF, but until then we should treat
>>> them as EPLv1 code and mention that in the LICENSE.txt file.
>>
>> Yes, that was a mistake. I wrote those two classes originally, so I can
>> relicense them. I have done that in revision 1333334.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Alex Parvulescu
<al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So we can consider the vote has failed due to the licencing issue.
Yes.
> I see that we already have one commit on the trunk, so in order to minimize
> the noise maybe cutting 0.3 at the end of may is a better option?
Fine by me.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Posted by Alex Parvulescu <al...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
So we can consider the vote has failed due to the licencing issue.
I see that we already have one commit on the trunk, so in order to minimize
the noise maybe cutting 0.3 at the end of may is a better option?
alex
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >The troublesome files come with the following header:
> >
> >/*
> > * Copyright 2004-2011 H2 Group. Multiple-Licensed under the H2 License,
> > * Version 1.0, and under the Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0
> > * (http://h2database.com/html/license.html).
> > * Initial Developer: H2 Group
> > */
> >
> >I suppose they may well have originally written by Thomas and that he
> >could simply relicense them to the ASF, but until then we should treat
> >them as EPLv1 code and mention that in the LICENSE.txt file.
>
> Yes, that was a mistake. I wrote those two classes originally, so I can
> relicense them. I have done that in revision 1333334.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Posted by Thomas Mueller <mu...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
>The troublesome files come with the following header:
>
>/*
> * Copyright 2004-2011 H2 Group. Multiple-Licensed under the H2 License,
> * Version 1.0, and under the Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0
> * (http://h2database.com/html/license.html).
> * Initial Developer: H2 Group
> */
>
>I suppose they may well have originally written by Thomas and that he
>could simply relicense them to the ASF, but until then we should treat
>them as EPLv1 code and mention that in the LICENSE.txt file.
Yes, that was a mistake. I wrote those two classes originally, so I can
relicense them. I have done that in revision 1333334.
Regards,
Thomas
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org> wrote:
> I noted however, that some of the files in
> /oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/mk/fs do not have the Apache
> copyright header. We should fix this first. I found these files by manual
> inspection but I guess the rat plugin should have found them too.
I spotted them when setting up the rat checks [1] and just added
excludes for now until the situation with those files is resolved. See
also OAK-56 [2].
I figured I'd resolve the issue before clearing the 0.2 milestone, but
just forgot about it.
> So we should also take a look at what's wrong with that.
The troublesome files come with the following header:
/*
* Copyright 2004-2011 H2 Group. Multiple-Licensed under the H2 License,
* Version 1.0, and under the Eclipse Public License, Version 1.0
* (http://h2database.com/html/license.html).
* Initial Developer: H2 Group
*/
I suppose they may well have originally written by Thomas and that he
could simply relicense them to the ASF, but until then we should treat
them as EPLv1 code and mention that in the LICENSE.txt file.
In general it should be fine to treat minor issues like this as bugs
to be fixed in the next release, perhaps with an extra disclaimer
added to the release notes. However, since EPLv1 is considered a
"category B" license [3], we actually shouldn't even be including the
code in source form. Therefore I think this indeed counts as a release
blocker.
Thomas, do you have more insight on how we should handle these files?
Can we get them from a binary dependency like H2, or could we for now
simply replace the code with equivalent Commons IO (or Java IO) calls
as mentioned in OAK-56?
Once the issue is resolved, I think we should just re-cut the release
as 0.2.1. Or then we simply skip 0.2 and go with 0.3 at the end of
May.
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1332148
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-56
[3] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
Posted by Michael Dürig <md...@apache.org>.
Thanks Alex for preparing this!
I noted however, that some of the files in
/oak-core/src/main/java/org/apache/jackrabbit/mk/fs do not have the
Apache copyright header. We should fix this first. I found these files
by manual inspection but I guess the rat plugin should have found them
too. So we should also take a look at what's wrong with that.
Michael
On 2.5.12 19:23, Alex Parvulescu wrote:
> A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 0.2 release is available at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~alexparvulescu/oak/0.2/
>
> The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/tags/jackrabbit-oak-0.2/
>
> The SHA1 checksum of the archive is
> c89e141114d130f646e30862850660a5e27ded03.
>
> A staged Maven repository is available for review at:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/
>
> The command for running automated checks against this release candidate is:
>
> $ sh check-release.sh alexparvulescu 0.2
> c89e141114d130f646e30862850660a5e27ded03
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2.
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least three +1 Jackrabbit PMC votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Jackrabbit Oak 0.2
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
>
> +1 from me,
>
> best,
> alex
>