You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> on 2009/05/09 19:27:03 UTC
[VOTE] Publish Apache Sling Release
The Apache Sling community voted on and has approved a proposal to
release Apache Sling. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation
Policy we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC
to publish the tarball on the Sling Download page (this will be
http://incubator.apache.org/sling/site/download.html).
As the vote result mail is not in the mail archives yet (there seems to
be some delay), here's the result:
------------------
The vote to release Apache Sling 5 finished successfully with six +1
votes from:
- Felix Meschberger (*)
- Jukka Zitting (*)
- Juan José Vázquez Delgado (*)
- Vidar Ramdal (*)
- Carsten Ziegeler (*)
- Bertrand Delacretaz (*)
The people marked with * are members of the PPMC.
No other votes were cast.
-------------------
Please cast your votes!
Thanks
Carsten
Proposal, vote thread and vote result:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-sling-dev/200905.mbox/%3C4A01ADCA.8000701@apache.org%3E
Releases section of the Incubation Policy:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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] Publish Apache Sling Release
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On May 12, 2009, at 3:09 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 12/05/2009, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>>
>> On May 12, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>>>> Earlier, sebb wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's OK to expect users to have to trawl through
>>>> all the
>>>> NOTICE and LICENSE files to find all the required information. IMO,
>>>> the top-level L & N files need to relate to the entire contents.
clr: we are in agreement.
>>>>
>>> Transitively or just for the first level dependencies?
>>>
>> Dependencies that are not *shipped* with the distribution are neither
>> NOTICEd nor LICENSEd in the distribution.
>
> +1, that's what I meant; sorry I was not clearer.
clr: we are in agreement. It was clear to me.
>
> Of course external dependencies - to first level at least - *ought* to
> be documented to ensure the consumer knows what else is needed to use
> the product, but they go elsewhere, e.g. in the README and/or on the
> web-site.
clr: we are in agreement.
>
>
>> Craig
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Publish Apache Sling Release
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:04 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/05/2009, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:09 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Of course external dependencies - to first level at least - *ought* to
> > > be documented to ensure the consumer knows what else is needed to use
> > > the product, but they go elsewhere, e.g. in the README and/or on the
> > > web-site.
> >
> >
> > A Maven-based project documents all it's dependencies in the POM.
> >
>
> Or possibly not, if the project use a parent POM.
>
> It is not fair to expect users to understand the contents of POMs.
>
There's some automated tooling to insert the list of dependencies alongside
the notice and license files inside jars, but it's not used in all cases. I
haven't looked into why yet.
>
> > BR,
> >
> > Jukka Zitting
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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] Publish Apache Sling Release
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 13/05/2009, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:09 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of course external dependencies - to first level at least - *ought* to
> > be documented to ensure the consumer knows what else is needed to use
> > the product, but they go elsewhere, e.g. in the README and/or on the
> > web-site.
>
>
> A Maven-based project documents all it's dependencies in the POM.
>
Or possibly not, if the project use a parent POM.
It is not fair to expect users to understand the contents of POMs.
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Publish Apache Sling Release
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:09 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course external dependencies - to first level at least - *ought* to
> be documented to ensure the consumer knows what else is needed to use
> the product, but they go elsewhere, e.g. in the README and/or on the
> web-site.
A Maven-based project documents all it's dependencies in the POM.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Publish Apache Sling Release
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 12/05/2009, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think it's OK to expect users to have to trawl through all the
> > > NOTICE and LICENSE files to find all the required information. IMO,
> > > the top-level L & N files need to relate to the entire contents.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Transitively or just for the first level dependencies?
> >
>
> Dependencies that are not *shipped* with the distribution are neither
> NOTICEd nor LICENSEd in the distribution.
+1, that's what I meant; sorry I was not clearer.
Of course external dependencies - to first level at least - *ought* to
be documented to ensure the consumer knows what else is needed to use
the product, but they go elsewhere, e.g. in the README and/or on the
web-site.
> Craig
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Publish Apache Sling Release
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On May 12, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think it's OK to expect users to have to trawl through all
>> the
>> NOTICE and LICENSE files to find all the required information. IMO,
>> the top-level L & N files need to relate to the entire contents.
>>
>
> Transitively or just for the first level dependencies?
Dependencies that are not *shipped* with the distribution are neither
NOTICEd nor LICENSEd in the distribution.
Craig
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Publish Apache Sling Release
Posted by Brian Fox <br...@infinity.nu>.
>
>
>
> I don't think it's OK to expect users to have to trawl through all the
> NOTICE and LICENSE files to find all the required information. IMO,
> the top-level L & N files need to relate to the entire contents.
>
Transitively or just for the first level dependencies?
Re: [VOTE] Publish Apache Sling Release
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/05/2009, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 10:43 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > There are rather a lot of LICENSE and NOTICE files dotted around the
>> > source archive.
>>
>> That's in anticipation of the future release model that Sling is
>> targetting. Instead of a big bang release like this or the previous
>> release, Sling is planning to start releasing individual components
>> separately. Each of these components will then need their own
>> licensing information. Currently Sling includes licensing metadata
>> both on the top level and on component level.
>
> OK, but they need to be consistent.
AFAIK they are.
Note that in some components the LICENSE and NOTICE files for the
source code differ from those of the resulting binaries because of
embedded dependencies like Rhino. In such cases Sling typically
includes separate LICENSE and NOTICE files in
src/main/resources/META-INF (or a similar location) for inclusion in
the resulting binary artifact.
> I don't think it's OK to expect users to have to trawl through all the
> NOTICE and LICENSE files to find all the required information. IMO,
> the top-level L & N files need to relate to the entire contents.
Agreed, though I think it's OK if Sling fixes this for their next
release. Do you prefer that this release be redone to fix this?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Publish Apache Sling Release
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 11/05/2009, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 10:43 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are rather a lot of LICENSE and NOTICE files dotted around the
> > source archive.
>
>
> That's in anticipation of the future release model that Sling is
> targetting. Instead of a big bang release like this or the previous
> release, Sling is planning to start releasing individual components
> separately. Each of these components will then need their own
> licensing information. Currently Sling includes licensing metadata
> both on the top level and on component level.
OK, but they need to be consistent.
>
> > I would expect the top-level one to be a superset of the lower level
> > ones, but this is not the case as the top-level L &or N files don't
> > mention Rhino.
>
>
> The source archive does not contain Rhino code, so there's no need to
> mention it in the LICENSE or NOTICE files.
In which case, please can it be removed?
It's confusing.
>
> > Binary archive
> > ==========
> > The LICENSE does not mention JSON or Rhino
> > The NOTICE file does not mention JSON or Rhino
> >
> > The nested binary archive contains a copy of Groovy and Jetty, neither
> > of which is credited anywhere as far as I can tell. I would expect at
> > least a mention in the LICENSE files, as these are not ASF projects.
>
>
> I noted this too [1], but I didn't consider this a blocking issue as
> the licensing information of all the embedded dependencies can be
> found inside the bundles packaged in resources/bundles within the top
> level binaries. For example, the Groovy licensing information can be
> found in resources/bundles/0/groovy-all-1.6.0.jar. It would of course
> be preferable if this information was included or at least referenced
> in the top level LICENSE and NOTICE files.
I don't think it's OK to expect users to have to trawl through all the
NOTICE and LICENSE files to find all the required information. IMO,
the top-level L & N files need to relate to the entire contents.
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/nn64fjgnmlxvqov6
>
> BR,
>
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Publish Apache Sling Release
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 10:43 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are rather a lot of LICENSE and NOTICE files dotted around the
> source archive.
That's in anticipation of the future release model that Sling is
targetting. Instead of a big bang release like this or the previous
release, Sling is planning to start releasing individual components
separately. Each of these components will then need their own
licensing information. Currently Sling includes licensing metadata
both on the top level and on component level.
> I would expect the top-level one to be a superset of the lower level
> ones, but this is not the case as the top-level L &or N files don't
> mention Rhino.
The source archive does not contain Rhino code, so there's no need to
mention it in the LICENSE or NOTICE files.
> Binary archive
> ==========
> The LICENSE does not mention JSON or Rhino
> The NOTICE file does not mention JSON or Rhino
>
> The nested binary archive contains a copy of Groovy and Jetty, neither
> of which is credited anywhere as far as I can tell. I would expect at
> least a mention in the LICENSE files, as these are not ASF projects.
I noted this too [1], but I didn't consider this a blocking issue as
the licensing information of all the embedded dependencies can be
found inside the bundles packaged in resources/bundles within the top
level binaries. For example, the Groovy licensing information can be
found in resources/bundles/0/groovy-all-1.6.0.jar. It would of course
be preferable if this information was included or at least referenced
in the top level LICENSE and NOTICE files.
[1] http://markmail.org/message/nn64fjgnmlxvqov6
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Publish Apache Sling Release
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 09/05/2009, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> The Apache Sling community voted on and has approved a proposal to
> release Apache Sling. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation
> Policy we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC
> to publish the tarball on the Sling Download page (this will be
> http://incubator.apache.org/sling/site/download.html).
>
> As the vote result mail is not in the mail archives yet (there seems to
> be some delay), here's the result:
> ------------------
> The vote to release Apache Sling 5 finished successfully with six +1
> votes from:
>
> - Felix Meschberger (*)
> - Jukka Zitting (*)
> - Juan José Vázquez Delgado (*)
> - Vidar Ramdal (*)
> - Carsten Ziegeler (*)
> - Bertrand Delacretaz (*)
>
> The people marked with * are members of the PPMC.
>
> No other votes were cast.
> -------------------
>
> Please cast your votes!
>
> Thanks
> Carsten
>
> Proposal, vote thread and vote result:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-sling-dev/200905.mbox/%3C4A01ADCA.8000701@apache.org%3E
The top-level NOTICE file looks wrong:
-------------
Apache Sling
Copyright 2008-2009 The Apache Software Foundation
Apache Sling is based on source code originally developed
by Day Software (http://www.day.com/).
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
[snip]
-------------
The second and third paragraphs are the wrong way round, see:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
==
The NOTICE files in the Maven jars also don't adhere to the above.
==
There are rather a lot of LICENSE and NOTICE files dotted around the
source archive.
I would expect the top-level one to be a superset of the lower level
ones, but this is not the case as the top-level L &or N files don't
mention Rhino.
Binary archive
==========
The LICENSE does not mention JSON or Rhino
The NOTICE file does not mention JSON or Rhino
The nested binary archive contains a copy of Groovy and Jetty, neither
of which is credited anywhere as far as I can tell. I would expect at
least a mention in the LICENSE files, as these are not ASF projects.
> Releases section of the Incubation Policy:
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
[VOTE RESULT] Publish Apache Sling Release
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
The vote to release Apache Sling passed by lazy consensus. The following
Incubator PMC members already voted for the release of the podling:
Bertrand Delacretaz
Felix Meschberger
Carsten Ziegeler
Jukka Zitting
Thanks for voting; I'll upload the release on thursday.
Regards
Carsten
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> The Apache Sling community voted on and has approved a proposal to
> release Apache Sling. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation
> Policy we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC
> to publish the tarball on the Sling Download page (this will be
> http://incubator.apache.org/sling/site/download.html).
>
> As the vote result mail is not in the mail archives yet (there seems to
> be some delay), here's the result:
> ------------------
> The vote to release Apache Sling 5 finished successfully with six +1
> votes from:
>
> - Felix Meschberger (*)
> - Jukka Zitting (*)
> - Juan José Vázquez Delgado (*)
> - Vidar Ramdal (*)
> - Carsten Ziegeler (*)
> - Bertrand Delacretaz (*)
>
> The people marked with * are members of the PPMC.
>
> No other votes were cast.
> -------------------
>
> Please cast your votes!
>
> Thanks
> Carsten
>
> Proposal, vote thread and vote result:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-sling-dev/200905.mbox/%3C4A01ADCA.8000701@apache.org%3E
>
> Releases section of the Incubation Policy:
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org