[ANN] Release Candidate

[Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>]

Hi Folks,

the latested RC can be found at the following location
http://people.apache.org/~rajith/qpid-release/RC1/

Please give it a spin and let us know your comments.

Cliff can you please take a peak and check the legal side ?

Regards,

Rajith

Re: [ANN] Release Candidate

[Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>]

On 20/11/06, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/06, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 3. The DISCLAIMER file has the incubating notice in it.  I thought
> that the incubator docs say to put this in the README, not a separate
> doc.  I haven't looked at them in a while, but that's what I recall.
> Sorry can't verify that at the moment, but you might want to check
> that.

Quoting from robert burrell donkin discussing the OpenJPA release:

>> I don't see any
>> mention of including the DISCLAIMER file ... is there somewhere else
>> that mentions that that file should be included in jars (or other
>> binary artifacts)?
>
>you won't find it since this is not a general requirement for apache
>releases :-)
>
>the IPMC requires a disclaimer text is distributed with each artifact.
>i guessed that since openjpa uses a DISCLAIMER.txt that it would make
>sense to include this. feel free to shoot me down if you already
>include the disclaimer in some other form.

Full email at:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200611.mbox/%3cf470f68e0611180649k1d1e7ea7he71ede29c9d146e3@mail.gmail.com%3e

If it isn't a general requirement then I guess we don't need it but it
seems like a good thing to have separate from the README as it at
least to me stands out more.
-- 
Martin Ritchie

Re: [ANN] Release Candidate

[Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>]

1 & 2. The duplication was due to the ant target being run on a dirty
working directory. I have a fix that will prevent that occurring that
I am in the process of testing.

3 Should now be addressed if we put a licence.amqp.txt file in the
spec directory.

On 21/11/06, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/06, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey Cliff,
> >
> > Thanks for the great feedback. I will start working on these items.
> > I will wait for a full review by you (and others as well) before
> > cutting another RC.
> > Hopefully if I receive all the feedback today I could do it at night
> > or maybe first thing in the morning.
>
> Here's the only other stuff I came up with during a more thorough review:
>
> 1. For some reason there's a duplicate set of LICENSE in the /java
> directory of the -src distro.  While not needed, it's okay to be there
> as long as you keep it in synch with the root copy.
>
> 2. The src distribution seems to have two specs directory, one at the
> root and one in /src.  Was this intentional?
>
> 3. The spec license also needs to be mentioned in the LICENSE file
> just like the other licenses.
>
> 4.  And this is the most significant item: the license for the spec
> appears to still not include the right to 'distribute'.  I pointed
> this issue out when this project was being proposed.  It definitely
> needs to be fixed before including the spec in an Apache distribution.
>
> Cliff
>


-- 
Martin Ritchie

Re: [ANN] Release Candidate

[Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>]

Thanks Carl - that's great.

Marnie


On 11/21/06, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>> 4.  And this is the most significant item: the license for the spec
> >>> appears to still not include the right to 'distribute'.  I pointed
> >>> this issue out when this project was being proposed.  It definitely
> >>> needs to be fixed before including the spec in an Apache distribution.
> >>>
>
> Corrected.
>
> Carl.
>

Re: [ANN] Release Candidate

[Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>]

>>> 4.  And this is the most significant item: the license for the spec
>>> appears to still not include the right to 'distribute'.  I pointed
>>> this issue out when this project was being proposed.  It definitely
>>> needs to be fixed before including the spec in an Apache distribution.
>>>  

Corrected.

Carl.

Re: [ANN] Release Candidate

[Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>]

Marnie,

I believe that I have all the documentation I need for to correct it. I 
will do so.

Carl.


Marnie McCormack wrote:
> Hi Cliff,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> I've spoken to John about the spec license issue and his will be 
> raising it
> at the protocol working group today with a view to it being urgently
> addressed for Apache use.
>
> Will action/check on the other open items shortly.
>
> Regards,
> Marnie
>
>
> On 11/21/06, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/20/06, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hey Cliff,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the great feedback. I will start working on these items.
>> > I will wait for a full review by you (and others as well) before
>> > cutting another RC.
>> > Hopefully if I receive all the feedback today I could do it at night
>> > or maybe first thing in the morning.
>>
>> Here's the only other stuff I came up with during a more thorough 
>> review:
>>
>> 1. For some reason there's a duplicate set of LICENSE in the /java
>> directory of the -src distro.  While not needed, it's okay to be there
>> as long as you keep it in synch with the root copy.
>>
>> 2. The src distribution seems to have two specs directory, one at the
>> root and one in /src.  Was this intentional?
>>
>> 3. The spec license also needs to be mentioned in the LICENSE file
>> just like the other licenses.
>>
>> 4.  And this is the most significant item: the license for the spec
>> appears to still not include the right to 'distribute'.  I pointed
>> this issue out when this project was being proposed.  It definitely
>> needs to be fixed before including the spec in an Apache distribution.
>>
>> Cliff
>>
>

Re: [ANN] Release Candidate

[Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>]

Hi Cliff,

Thanks for the feedback.

I've spoken to John about the spec license issue and his will be raising it
at the protocol working group today with a view to it being urgently
addressed for Apache use.

Will action/check on the other open items shortly.

Regards,
Marnie


On 11/21/06, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/20/06, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey Cliff,
> >
> > Thanks for the great feedback. I will start working on these items.
> > I will wait for a full review by you (and others as well) before
> > cutting another RC.
> > Hopefully if I receive all the feedback today I could do it at night
> > or maybe first thing in the morning.
>
> Here's the only other stuff I came up with during a more thorough review:
>
> 1. For some reason there's a duplicate set of LICENSE in the /java
> directory of the -src distro.  While not needed, it's okay to be there
> as long as you keep it in synch with the root copy.
>
> 2. The src distribution seems to have two specs directory, one at the
> root and one in /src.  Was this intentional?
>
> 3. The spec license also needs to be mentioned in the LICENSE file
> just like the other licenses.
>
> 4.  And this is the most significant item: the license for the spec
> appears to still not include the right to 'distribute'.  I pointed
> this issue out when this project was being proposed.  It definitely
> needs to be fixed before including the spec in an Apache distribution.
>
> Cliff
>

Re: [ANN] Release Candidate

[Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>]

Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/20/06, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey Cliff,
>>
>> Thanks for the great feedback. I will start working on these items.
>> I will wait for a full review by you (and others as well) before
>> cutting another RC.
>> Hopefully if I receive all the feedback today I could do it at night
>> or maybe first thing in the morning.
>
> Here's the only other stuff I came up with during a more thorough review:
>
> 1. For some reason there's a duplicate set of LICENSE in the /java
> directory of the -src distro.  While not needed, it's okay to be there
> as long as you keep it in synch with the root copy.
>
> 2. The src distribution seems to have two specs directory, one at the
> root and one in /src.  Was this intentional?
>
> 3. The spec license also needs to be mentioned in the LICENSE file
> just like the other licenses.
>
> 4.  And this is the most significant item: the license for the spec
> appears to still not include the right to 'distribute'.  I pointed
> this issue out when this project was being proposed.  It definitely
> needs to be fixed before including the spec in an Apache distribution.


I will fix this point 4.
Carl.


>
> Cliff

Re: [ANN] Release Candidate

[Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>]

On 11/20/06, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Cliff,
>
> Thanks for the great feedback. I will start working on these items.
> I will wait for a full review by you (and others as well) before
> cutting another RC.
> Hopefully if I receive all the feedback today I could do it at night
> or maybe first thing in the morning.

Here's the only other stuff I came up with during a more thorough review:

1. For some reason there's a duplicate set of LICENSE in the /java
directory of the -src distro.  While not needed, it's okay to be there
as long as you keep it in synch with the root copy.

2. The src distribution seems to have two specs directory, one at the
root and one in /src.  Was this intentional?

3. The spec license also needs to be mentioned in the LICENSE file
just like the other licenses.

4.  And this is the most significant item: the license for the spec
appears to still not include the right to 'distribute'.  I pointed
this issue out when this project was being proposed.  It definitely
needs to be fixed before including the spec in an Apache distribution.

Cliff

Re: [ANN] Release Candidate

[Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>]

Hey Cliff,

Thanks for the great feedback. I will start working on these items.
I will wait for a full review by you (and others as well) before
cutting another RC.
Hopefully if I receive all the feedback today I could do it at night
or maybe first thing in the morning.

Regards,

Rajith

On 11/20/06, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/06, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > the latested RC can be found at the following location
> > http://people.apache.org/~rajith/qpid-release/RC1/
> >
> > Please give it a spin and let us know your comments.
> >
> > Cliff can you please take a peak and check the legal side ?
>
> I'll continue to look though this more thoroughly, but here are a few
> items I saw right away:
>
> 1. The NOTICE file doesn't include the ASF copyright at the top and
> the other wording mentioned in
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice.
>
> 2. The LICENSE file's list of all licenses is pretty overwhelming; in
> fact, I think there are many copies of the same license referenced.
> How about changing this to something like, "Portions of this product
> are distributed under the following licenses:", and then name each
> distinct license that applies with a single link to a copy of that
> license either in the build or on a web site (like OSI's site).  And
> then under each license, include links to the parts of the code that
> the license applies to.  We don't have any specific requirements at
> the ASF for how this is done, it just seems to me that the current
> list isn't very helpful to a user wanting to get a quick understanding
> of what terms apply to the product.
>
> 3. The DISCLAIMER file has the incubating notice in it.  I thought
> that the incubator docs say to put this in the README, not a separate
> doc.  I haven't looked at them in a while, but that's what I recall.
> Sorry can't verify that at the moment, but you might want to check
> that.
>
> Cliff
>

Re: [ANN] Release Candidate

[Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>]

On 11/20/06, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> the latested RC can be found at the following location
> http://people.apache.org/~rajith/qpid-release/RC1/
>
> Please give it a spin and let us know your comments.
>
> Cliff can you please take a peak and check the legal side ?

I'll continue to look though this more thoroughly, but here are a few
items I saw right away:

1. The NOTICE file doesn't include the ASF copyright at the top and
the other wording mentioned in
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice.

2. The LICENSE file's list of all licenses is pretty overwhelming; in
fact, I think there are many copies of the same license referenced.
How about changing this to something like, "Portions of this product
are distributed under the following licenses:", and then name each
distinct license that applies with a single link to a copy of that
license either in the build or on a web site (like OSI's site).  And
then under each license, include links to the parts of the code that
the license applies to.  We don't have any specific requirements at
the ASF for how this is done, it just seems to me that the current
list isn't very helpful to a user wanting to get a quick understanding
of what terms apply to the product.

3. The DISCLAIMER file has the incubating notice in it.  I thought
that the incubator docs say to put this in the README, not a separate
doc.  I haven't looked at them in a while, but that's what I recall.
Sorry can't verify that at the moment, but you might want to check
that.

Cliff

Re: [ANN] Release Candidate

[Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>]

Hi Folks,

Just to clarify, I didn't name the new Release Candidate as RC2 since
it was only a minor script change.

So it's still reffered to as RC1.
I appologize for any confusion this might have caused.

Regards,

Rajith

On 11/20/06, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> the latested RC can be found at the following location
> http://people.apache.org/~rajith/qpid-release/RC1/
>
> Please give it a spin and let us know your comments.
>
> Cliff can you please take a peak and check the legal side ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajith
>