You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shiro.apache.org by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com> on 2010/07/26 20:38:35 UTC
Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release
I made a few minor commits last night to fix the issues that came up
during the 1.0.0 release. I also took a look at the notice file and
I'd like refine the wording. Currently the contents with "NOTICE
accounting for Apache Shiro's use" lines make it sound more like a
licensing issue but the two notices we have are about copyrights, not
licenses. The NOTICE is a user-facing file but as is, it reads to me
more of a document to Incubator PMC for IP clearance. Ant had
suggested perhaps removing the notice regarding SoftHashMap which I
believe we could do if we only used the concept since ideas cannot be
copyrighted. I believe the code is in public domain so the matter is
only regarding to copyrights in case we copied some of the code
directly but I didn't try doing a diff to verify. Regardless, I think
it's fair to acknowledge Dr. Heinz Kabutz as the originator of the
SoftHashMap concept even if we aren't legally bound to put in NOTICE
file. I'd remove the "== NOTICE accounting..." header and the "Per
Heinz Kabutz..." line.
The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
under the same Apache license and there are multiple copyright holders
of the Spring codebase so we just need to acknowledge that Spring has
copyrights to some part of the codebase if we copied the code for
StringUtils etc. directly which we probably did. I'd remove the "==
NOTICE from" header and rephrase the wording to mention StringUtils
and the reasoning.
I'll edit the file as suggested unless I hear objections.
Regarding the roadmap, after this we only have actual code issues left
for 1.1.0 release. There were a few issues in 1.0.0 that were more
than minor but each with workarounds so at this point it doesn't seem
like we'd necessarily need 1.0.1 release before 1.1.0. Now, if we
release 1.1.0 while still in incubator, we are in some ways "wasting"
a perfectly good release. It's my understanding we could more or less
graduate at will now so unless anything urgent comes up, I'd suggest
we get ready for 1.1.0 release, hold a graduation vote and then
release 1.1.0 as TLP. Does anybody see any issues with that plan
and/or any pressing issues we must complete before attempting to
graduate?
Kalle
Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Sounds good to me.
+1 for the wiki.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You got it. Wiki's probably the lowest overhead, given that it'll end
> up in wiki as well. I don't think there's an SVN requirement.
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Yep, that's the plan at least - and I'd love some review/help along
>> the way :) I'll be able to dedicate some time to this tomorrow. How
>> do we want to go through edit iterations? SVN? Wiki? Mailing List
>> only?
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Les, have you/are you going to write up the resolution? You should
>>> probably come up with initial draft but I'll certainly help revise it
>>> as needed. We could also hold a community graduation vote (not a
>>> requirement but recommended).
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kalle Korhonen
>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> So, what are the next steps towards graduation?
>>>>> Is all that is left is to hold a vote?
>>>>
>>>> The page at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html gives
>>>> you a pretty good idea. AFAIK, we don't have any incubation action
>>>> items left open but the biggest thing before the graduation vote is
>>>> preparing the resolution. You should be the chair in my opinion.
>>>> There's a bit of bureaucracy to finish if and once the vote is
>>>> accepted, but manageable. It'd make sense to follow up with 1.1
>>>> release shortly after the graduation to make the most out of free
>>>> publicity, but given that I'd assume it's still going to be a few
>>>> weeks before all is set and done, might make sense to start now.
>>>>
>>>> Kalle
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the
>>>>>>> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
>>>>>>> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
>>>>>>> existing notice file. As long as the URL for his website remains (his
>>>>>>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
>>>>>>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
>>>>>>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
>>>>>>> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*. We're definitely
>>>>>>> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more
>>>>>> as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary
>>>>>> purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
You got it. Wiki's probably the lowest overhead, given that it'll end
up in wiki as well. I don't think there's an SVN requirement.
Kalle
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yep, that's the plan at least - and I'd love some review/help along
> the way :) I'll be able to dedicate some time to this tomorrow. How
> do we want to go through edit iterations? SVN? Wiki? Mailing List
> only?
>
> Les
>
> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Les, have you/are you going to write up the resolution? You should
>> probably come up with initial draft but I'll certainly help revise it
>> as needed. We could also hold a community graduation vote (not a
>> requirement but recommended).
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kalle Korhonen
>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> So, what are the next steps towards graduation?
>>>> Is all that is left is to hold a vote?
>>>
>>> The page at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html gives
>>> you a pretty good idea. AFAIK, we don't have any incubation action
>>> items left open but the biggest thing before the graduation vote is
>>> preparing the resolution. You should be the chair in my opinion.
>>> There's a bit of bureaucracy to finish if and once the vote is
>>> accepted, but manageable. It'd make sense to follow up with 1.1
>>> release shortly after the graduation to make the most out of free
>>> publicity, but given that I'd assume it's still going to be a few
>>> weeks before all is set and done, might make sense to start now.
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the
>>>>>> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
>>>>>> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
>>>>>> existing notice file. As long as the URL for his website remains (his
>>>>>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
>>>>>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
>>>>>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
>>>>>> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*. We're definitely
>>>>>> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more
>>>>> as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary
>>>>> purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kalle
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Yep, that's the plan at least - and I'd love some review/help along
the way :) I'll be able to dedicate some time to this tomorrow. How
do we want to go through edit iterations? SVN? Wiki? Mailing List
only?
Les
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Les, have you/are you going to write up the resolution? You should
> probably come up with initial draft but I'll certainly help revise it
> as needed. We could also hold a community graduation vote (not a
> requirement but recommended).
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> So, what are the next steps towards graduation?
>>> Is all that is left is to hold a vote?
>>
>> The page at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html gives
>> you a pretty good idea. AFAIK, we don't have any incubation action
>> items left open but the biggest thing before the graduation vote is
>> preparing the resolution. You should be the chair in my opinion.
>> There's a bit of bureaucracy to finish if and once the vote is
>> accepted, but manageable. It'd make sense to follow up with 1.1
>> release shortly after the graduation to make the most out of free
>> publicity, but given that I'd assume it's still going to be a few
>> weeks before all is set and done, might make sense to start now.
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the
>>>>> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
>>>>> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
>>>>> existing notice file. As long as the URL for his website remains (his
>>>>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version.
>>>>
>>>>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
>>>>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
>>>>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
>>>>> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*. We're definitely
>>>>> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
>>>>
>>>> Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more
>>>> as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary
>>>> purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK.
>>>>
>>>> Kalle
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
Les, have you/are you going to write up the resolution? You should
probably come up with initial draft but I'll certainly help revise it
as needed. We could also hold a community graduation vote (not a
requirement but recommended).
Kalle
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> So, what are the next steps towards graduation?
>> Is all that is left is to hold a vote?
>
> The page at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html gives
> you a pretty good idea. AFAIK, we don't have any incubation action
> items left open but the biggest thing before the graduation vote is
> preparing the resolution. You should be the chair in my opinion.
> There's a bit of bureaucracy to finish if and once the vote is
> accepted, but manageable. It'd make sense to follow up with 1.1
> release shortly after the graduation to make the most out of free
> publicity, but given that I'd assume it's still going to be a few
> weeks before all is set and done, might make sense to start now.
>
> Kalle
>
>
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the
>>>> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
>>>> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
>>>> existing notice file. As long as the URL for his website remains (his
>>>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
>>>
>>> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version.
>>>
>>>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
>>>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
>>>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
>>>> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*. We're definitely
>>>> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
>>>
>>> Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more
>>> as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary
>>> purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK.
>>>
>>> Kalle
>>>
>>
>
Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> So, what are the next steps towards graduation?
> Is all that is left is to hold a vote?
The page at http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html gives
you a pretty good idea. AFAIK, we don't have any incubation action
items left open but the biggest thing before the graduation vote is
preparing the resolution. You should be the chair in my opinion.
There's a bit of bureaucracy to finish if and once the vote is
accepted, but manageable. It'd make sense to follow up with 1.1
release shortly after the graduation to make the most out of free
publicity, but given that I'd assume it's still going to be a few
weeks before all is set and done, might make sense to start now.
Kalle
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the
>>> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
>>> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
>>> existing notice file. As long as the URL for his website remains (his
>>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
>>
>> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version.
>>
>>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
>>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
>>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
>>> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*. We're definitely
>>> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
>>
>> Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more
>> as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary
>> purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK.
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>
Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
So, what are the next steps towards graduation?
Is all that is left is to hold a vote?
Les
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the
>> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
>> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
>> existing notice file. As long as the URL for his website remains (his
>> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
>
> Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version.
>
>>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
>> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
>> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
>> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*. We're definitely
>> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
>
> Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more
> as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary
> purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK.
>
> Kalle
>
Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the
> website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
> year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
> existing notice file. As long as the URL for his website remains (his
> 'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
Yes, assumed so. Rephrased the wording as suggested and committed a new version.
>> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
> That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
> attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
> applies to us redistributing their *documentation*. We're definitely
> not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
Right, I kept the Spring notice there but rephrased. Both serve more
as courtesy notices as well as for copyrights, which is the primary
purpose of the NOTICE file AFAIK.
Kalle
Re: Following through on suggestions from 1.0.0 release
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I made a few minor commits last night to fix the issues that came up
> during the 1.0.0 release. I also took a look at the notice file and
> I'd like refine the wording. Currently the contents with "NOTICE
> accounting for Apache Shiro's use" lines make it sound more like a
> licensing issue but the two notices we have are about copyrights, not
> licenses. The NOTICE is a user-facing file but as is, it reads to me
> more of a document to Incubator PMC for IP clearance. Ant had
> suggested perhaps removing the notice regarding SoftHashMap which I
> believe we could do if we only used the concept since ideas cannot be
> copyrighted.
I started by copying-and-pasting bits of the source code shown on the
website, so our mentors recommended that we get his permission last
year just in case, which is why that statement is included in the
existing notice file. As long as the URL for his website remains (his
'attribution clause' requested of us), we can remove anything else.
> The Spring source notice is equally straight-forwarded. Spring is
> under the same Apache license and there are multiple copyright holders
> of the Spring codebase so we just need to acknowledge that Spring has
> copyrights to some part of the codebase if we copied the code for
> StringUtils etc. directly which we probably did. I'd remove the "==
> NOTICE from" header and rephrase the wording to mention StringUtils
> and the reasoning.
That line was in there originally because I thought there was an
attribution requirement by Spring, but I double-checked and that only
applies to us redistributing their *documentation*. We're definitely
not doing that, so we can move that part entirely.
> Regarding the roadmap, after this we only have actual code issues left
> for 1.1.0 release. There were a few issues in 1.0.0 that were more
> than minor but each with workarounds so at this point it doesn't seem
> like we'd necessarily need 1.0.1 release before 1.1.0. Now, if we
> release 1.1.0 while still in incubator, we are in some ways "wasting"
> a perfectly good release. It's my understanding we could more or less
> graduate at will now so unless anything urgent comes up, I'd suggest
> we get ready for 1.1.0 release, hold a graduation vote and then
> release 1.1.0 as TLP.
I agree with this - I think we're good to go.
+1
Cheers,
Les