You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to olio-dev@incubator.apache.org by Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@Sun.COM> on 2009/04/09 02:59:34 UTC
[VOTE] Olio 0.1 Release
Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through and
cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The artificats
are available at http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than 4/10.
If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
Shanti
Re: [VOTE] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Amanda waite <Am...@Sun.COM>.
I'm no expert on the licensing or on rats, but I've used the bits and
found them to be good so
+1
Amanda Waite - Sun
Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
> Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
> a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
> b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all the
> rat outputs consistenly
> c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the missing
> third-party plugins.
> d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the rails
> plugin 'rorclassify'.
>
> Please review and VOTE.
>
> Shanti
>
> Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>> Craig,
>> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>>
>> Shanti
>>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> Hi Shanti,
>>>
>>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>>
>>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>>
>>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and sums)
>>> so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails, rails
>>> source. There are only two rat output files. This isn't a
>>> showstopper but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>>>
>> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear
>>> requirement for these files to have such a license. It's worth
>>> considering adding a license if only to clean up the rat output but
>>> no issue from me.
>>>
>> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add them.
>>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>>
>>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE and
>>> NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src distributions.
>>>
>> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or license
>>> information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for license
>>> information before this file can be included. Or the license
>>> covering this file needs to be identified and added to the file.
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>>
>>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
>>> referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license
>>> would be fine.
>>
>> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE
>> files. They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will add
>> them.
>>
>> I will re-spin the release.
>>> Craig
>>
>> Thanks
>> Shanti
>>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through and
>>>> cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
>>>> artificats are available at http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
>>>> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>>
>>>> Shanti
>>>
>>> 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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Akara Sucharitakul <Ak...@Sun.COM>.
We should automate the validation process so that Craig (or anybody else
for that matter) won't have to do all these checks. How about expanding
the dist/build.xml to add a validate task and report on any
irregularities? This will ensure the release abides by Apache policies
and makes live much easer to vote.
+1
-Akara
Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
> Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
> a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
> b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all the rat
> outputs consistenly
> c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the missing
> third-party plugins.
> d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the rails
> plugin 'rorclassify'.
>
> Please review and VOTE.
>
> Shanti
>
> Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>> Craig,
>> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>>
>> Shanti
>>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> Hi Shanti,
>>>
>>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>>
>>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>>
>>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and sums)
>>> so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails, rails
>>> source. There are only two rat output files. This isn't a showstopper
>>> but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>>>
>> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear requirement
>>> for these files to have such a license. It's worth considering adding
>>> a license if only to clean up the rat output but no issue from me.
>>>
>> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add them.
>>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>>
>>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE and
>>> NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src distributions.
>>>
>> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or license
>>> information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for license
>>> information before this file can be included. Or the license covering
>>> this file needs to be identified and added to the file.
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>>
>>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
>>> referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license would
>>> be fine.
>>
>> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
>> They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will add them.
>>
>> I will re-spin the release.
>>> Craig
>>
>> Thanks
>> Shanti
>>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through and
>>>> cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
>>>> artificats are available at http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
>>>> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>>
>>>> Shanti
>>>
>>> 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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@Sun.COM>.
Mentors; Can you please take a look and vote ?
Thanks
Shanti
On 04/10/09 12:36, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
> Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
> a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
> b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all the rat
> outputs consistenly
> c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the missing
> third-party plugins.
> d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the rails
> plugin 'rorclassify'.
>
> Please review and VOTE.
>
> Shanti
>
> Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>> Craig,
>> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>>
>> Shanti
>>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> Hi Shanti,
>>>
>>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>>
>>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>>
>>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and sums)
>>> so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails, rails
>>> source. There are only two rat output files. This isn't a showstopper
>>> but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>>>
>> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear requirement
>>> for these files to have such a license. It's worth considering adding
>>> a license if only to clean up the rat output but no issue from me.
>>>
>> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add them.
>>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>>
>>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE and
>>> NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src distributions.
>>>
>> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or license
>>> information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for license
>>> information before this file can be included. Or the license covering
>>> this file needs to be identified and added to the file.
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>>
>>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
>>> referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license would
>>> be fine.
>>
>> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
>> They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will add them.
>>
>> I will re-spin the release.
>>> Craig
>>
>> Thanks
>> Shanti
>>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through and
>>>> cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
>>>> artificats are available at http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
>>>> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>>
>>>> Shanti
>>>
>>> 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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@Sun.COM>.
Thanks Craig.
+1 from me as well.
Shanti
On 04/14/09 23:03, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Ok.
>
> I'll vote +1 for this release. These then fall into the category of
> licenses that aren't explicit in the distribution although they are
> clearly licensed with the category A MIT license.
>
> Craig
>
> On Apr 14, 2009, at 8:34 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> I've checked all the signatures and a couple of md5s and they're ok.
>>>
>>> PHP:
>>>
>>> Looks good.
>>>
>>> RAILS:
>>>
>>> I think the treatment of acts_as_network, calendar_helper,
>>> rspec-rail, rails_rcov, rspec are fine.
>>>
>>> The actual licenses for fixture_replacement2, country_select are
>>> buried in their README. I won't hold up the release for this, but in
>>> future, the license should be extracted and placed in its own LICENSE
>>> file in the subdirectory.
>>>
>>> Just one issue: I couldn't find the *actual* LICENSE for
>>> attachment_fu, white_list. Can you tell me where they are?
>>>
>> attachment_fu and white_list (among many others) are written by Rick
>> Olsen and his license is located at
>> http://svn.techno-weenie.net/projects/plugins/LICENSE.
>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>> Shanti
>>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
>>>> a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
>>>> b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all the
>>>> rat outputs consistenly
>>>> c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the missing
>>>> third-party plugins.
>>>> d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the rails
>>>> plugin 'rorclassify'.
>>>>
>>>> Please review and VOTE.
>>>>
>>>> Shanti
>>>>
>>>> Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>>> Craig,
>>>>> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>>>>>
>>>>> Shanti
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Shanti,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and
>>>>>> sums) so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails,
>>>>>> rails source. There are only two rat output files. This isn't a
>>>>>> showstopper but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>>>>>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear
>>>>>> requirement for these files to have such a license. It's worth
>>>>>> considering adding a license if only to clean up the rat output
>>>>>> but no issue from me.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add them.
>>>>>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE
>>>>>> and NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src
>>>>>> distributions.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>>>>>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or
>>>>>> license information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for
>>>>>> license information before this file can be included. Or the
>>>>>> license covering this file needs to be identified and added to the
>>>>>> file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>>>>>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
>>>>>> referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license
>>>>>> would be fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE
>>>>> files. They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will add
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will re-spin the release.
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Shanti
>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through
>>>>>>> and cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
>>>>>>> artificats are available at
>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>>>>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>>>>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
>>>>>>> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shanti
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> 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!
>>>
>
> 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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> Can anyone else please take a look at the Olio podling release?
+1 (after consulting thread below)
a little feedback to pass on:
OlioDriver.jar does not contain LICENSE and NOTICE. it should not be
distributed indepedently (for example, through the maven repository).
when distributing independently is also best to include full vendor
details in the MANIFEST
- robert
> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:03 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Ok.
>>
>> I'll vote +1 for this release. These then fall into the category of
>> licenses that aren't explicit in the distribution although they are clearly
>> licensed with the category A MIT license.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Apr 14, 2009, at 8:34 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>
>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've checked all the signatures and a couple of md5s and they're ok.
>>>>
>>>> PHP:
>>>>
>>>> Looks good.
>>>>
>>>> RAILS:
>>>>
>>>> I think the treatment of acts_as_network, calendar_helper, rspec-rail,
>>>> rails_rcov, rspec are fine.
>>>>
>>>> The actual licenses for fixture_replacement2, country_select are buried
>>>> in their README. I won't hold up the release for this, but in future, the
>>>> license should be extracted and placed in its own LICENSE file in the
>>>> subdirectory.
>>>>
>>>> Just one issue: I couldn't find the *actual* LICENSE for attachment_fu,
>>>> white_list. Can you tell me where they are?
>>>>
>>> attachment_fu and white_list (among many others) are written by Rick
>>> Olsen and his license is located at
>>> http://svn.techno-weenie.net/projects/plugins/LICENSE.
>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>> Shanti
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
>>>>> a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
>>>>> b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all the
>>>>> rat outputs consistenly
>>>>> c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the missing
>>>>> third-party plugins.
>>>>> d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the rails
>>>>> plugin 'rorclassify'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review and VOTE.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shanti
>>>>>
>>>>> Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig,
>>>>>> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shanti
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Shanti,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and sums)
>>>>>>> so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails, rails source.
>>>>>>> There are only two rat output files. This isn't a showstopper but just an
>>>>>>> inconvenience for reviewers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear requirement
>>>>>>> for these files to have such a license. It's worth considering adding a
>>>>>>> license if only to clean up the rat output but no issue from me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE and
>>>>>>> NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src distributions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or license
>>>>>>> information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for license
>>>>>>> information before this file can be included. Or the license covering this
>>>>>>> file needs to be identified and added to the file.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>>>>>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>>>>>>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
>>>>>>> referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license would be
>>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
>>>>>> They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will add them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will re-spin the release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Shanti
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through and
>>>>>>>> cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The artificats are
>>>>>>>> available at http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>>>>>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>>>>>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
>>>>>>>> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shanti
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>
>> 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!
>>
>
> 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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Can anyone else please take a look at the Olio podling release?
Thanks,
Craig
On Apr 14, 2009, at 11:03 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Ok.
>
> I'll vote +1 for this release. These then fall into the category of
> licenses that aren't explicit in the distribution although they are
> clearly licensed with the category A MIT license.
>
> Craig
>
> On Apr 14, 2009, at 8:34 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> I've checked all the signatures and a couple of md5s and they're ok.
>>>
>>> PHP:
>>>
>>> Looks good.
>>>
>>> RAILS:
>>>
>>> I think the treatment of acts_as_network, calendar_helper, rspec-
>>> rail, rails_rcov, rspec are fine.
>>>
>>> The actual licenses for fixture_replacement2, country_select are
>>> buried in their README. I won't hold up the release for this, but
>>> in future, the license should be extracted and placed in its own
>>> LICENSE file in the subdirectory.
>>>
>>> Just one issue: I couldn't find the *actual* LICENSE for
>>> attachment_fu, white_list. Can you tell me where they are?
>>>
>> attachment_fu and white_list (among many others) are written by
>> Rick Olsen and his license is located at http://svn.techno-weenie.net/projects/plugins/LICENSE
>> .
>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>> Shanti
>>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
>>>> a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
>>>> b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all
>>>> the rat outputs consistenly
>>>> c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the
>>>> missing third-party plugins.
>>>> d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the
>>>> rails plugin 'rorclassify'.
>>>>
>>>> Please review and VOTE.
>>>>
>>>> Shanti
>>>>
>>>> Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>>> Craig,
>>>>> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>>>>>
>>>>> Shanti
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Shanti,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and
>>>>>> sums) so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source,
>>>>>> rails, rails source. There are only two rat output files. This
>>>>>> isn't a showstopper but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>>>>>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear
>>>>>> requirement for these files to have such a license. It's worth
>>>>>> considering adding a license if only to clean up the rat output
>>>>>> but no issue from me.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add
>>>>> them.
>>>>>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the
>>>>>> LICENSE and NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from
>>>>>> the src distributions.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>>>>>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or
>>>>>> license information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted
>>>>>> for license information before this file can be included. Or
>>>>>> the license covering this file needs to be identified and added
>>>>>> to the file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>>> acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>>> acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>>> acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>>> acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>>> acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>>> acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>>> attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>>> attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>>>>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>>>>>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the
>>>>>> files referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the
>>>>>> license would be fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE
>>>>> files. They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will
>>>>> add them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will re-spin the release.
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Shanti
>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through
>>>>>>> and cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
>>>>>>> artificats are available at http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>>>>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>>>>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later
>>>>>>> than 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shanti
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> 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!
>>>
>
> 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!
>
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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Ok.
I'll vote +1 for this release. These then fall into the category of
licenses that aren't explicit in the distribution although they are
clearly licensed with the category A MIT license.
Craig
On Apr 14, 2009, at 8:34 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> I've checked all the signatures and a couple of md5s and they're ok.
>>
>> PHP:
>>
>> Looks good.
>>
>> RAILS:
>>
>> I think the treatment of acts_as_network, calendar_helper, rspec-
>> rail, rails_rcov, rspec are fine.
>>
>> The actual licenses for fixture_replacement2, country_select are
>> buried in their README. I won't hold up the release for this, but
>> in future, the license should be extracted and placed in its own
>> LICENSE file in the subdirectory.
>>
>> Just one issue: I couldn't find the *actual* LICENSE for
>> attachment_fu, white_list. Can you tell me where they are?
>>
> attachment_fu and white_list (among many others) are written by Rick
> Olsen and his license is located at http://svn.techno-weenie.net/projects/plugins/LICENSE
> .
>
>> Craig
>>
> Shanti
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>
>>> Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
>>> a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
>>> b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all
>>> the rat outputs consistenly
>>> c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the missing
>>> third-party plugins.
>>> d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the
>>> rails plugin 'rorclassify'.
>>>
>>> Please review and VOTE.
>>>
>>> Shanti
>>>
>>> Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>> Craig,
>>>> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>>>>
>>>> Shanti
>>>>
>>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>>> Hi Shanti,
>>>>>
>>>>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>>>>
>>>>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and
>>>>> sums) so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source,
>>>>> rails, rails source. There are only two rat output files. This
>>>>> isn't a showstopper but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>>>>>
>>>> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>>>>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear
>>>>> requirement for these files to have such a license. It's worth
>>>>> considering adding a license if only to clean up the rat output
>>>>> but no issue from me.
>>>>>
>>>> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add
>>>> them.
>>>>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>>>>
>>>>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE
>>>>> and NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src
>>>>> distributions.
>>>>>
>>>> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>>>>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or
>>>>> license information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted
>>>>> for license information before this file can be included. Or the
>>>>> license covering this file needs to be identified and added to
>>>>> the file.
>>>>>
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>> acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>> acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>> acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>> acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>> acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>> acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>> attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>>>> attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>>>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>>>>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the
>>>>> files referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the
>>>>> license would be fine.
>>>>
>>>> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE
>>>> files. They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will
>>>> add them.
>>>>
>>>> I will re-spin the release.
>>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Shanti
>>>>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through
>>>>>> and cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
>>>>>> artificats are available at http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>>>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>>>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later
>>>>>> than 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shanti
>>>>>
>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>
>> 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!
>>
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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Richard McDougall <rm...@vmware.com>.
+1 from VMware
Re: [VOTE] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@Sun.COM>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> I've checked all the signatures and a couple of md5s and they're ok.
>
> PHP:
>
> Looks good.
>
> RAILS:
>
> I think the treatment of acts_as_network, calendar_helper, rspec-rail,
> rails_rcov, rspec are fine.
>
> The actual licenses for fixture_replacement2, country_select are
> buried in their README. I won't hold up the release for this, but in
> future, the license should be extracted and placed in its own LICENSE
> file in the subdirectory.
>
> Just one issue: I couldn't find the *actual* LICENSE for
> attachment_fu, white_list. Can you tell me where they are?
>
attachment_fu and white_list (among many others) are written by Rick
Olsen and his license is located at
http://svn.techno-weenie.net/projects/plugins/LICENSE.
> Craig
>
Shanti
>
> On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>
>> Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
>> a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
>> b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all the
>> rat outputs consistenly
>> c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the missing
>> third-party plugins.
>> d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the rails
>> plugin 'rorclassify'.
>>
>> Please review and VOTE.
>>
>> Shanti
>>
>> Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>> Craig,
>>> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>>>
>>> Shanti
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>> Hi Shanti,
>>>>
>>>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>>>
>>>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>>>
>>>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and
>>>> sums) so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails,
>>>> rails source. There are only two rat output files. This isn't a
>>>> showstopper but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>>>>
>>> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>>>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear
>>>> requirement for these files to have such a license. It's worth
>>>> considering adding a license if only to clean up the rat output but
>>>> no issue from me.
>>>>
>>> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add them.
>>>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>>>
>>>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE
>>>> and NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src
>>>> distributions.
>>>>
>>> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>>>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or
>>>> license information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for
>>>> license information before this file can be included. Or the
>>>> license covering this file needs to be identified and added to the
>>>> file.
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>>>
>>>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>>>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
>>>> referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license
>>>> would be fine.
>>>
>>> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE
>>> files. They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will add
>>> them.
>>>
>>> I will re-spin the release.
>>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Shanti
>>>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through and
>>>>> cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
>>>>> artificats are available at
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
>>>>> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shanti
>>>>
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>
> 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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I've checked all the signatures and a couple of md5s and they're ok.
PHP:
Looks good.
RAILS:
I think the treatment of acts_as_network, calendar_helper, rspec-rail,
rails_rcov, rspec are fine.
The actual licenses for fixture_replacement2, country_select are
buried in their README. I won't hold up the release for this, but in
future, the license should be extracted and placed in its own LICENSE
file in the subdirectory.
Just one issue: I couldn't find the *actual* LICENSE for
attachment_fu, white_list. Can you tell me where they are?
Craig
On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
> Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
> a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
> b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all the
> rat outputs consistenly
> c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the missing
> third-party plugins.
> d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the rails
> plugin 'rorclassify'.
>
> Please review and VOTE.
>
> Shanti
>
> Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>> Craig,
>> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>>
>> Shanti
>>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> Hi Shanti,
>>>
>>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>>
>>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>>
>>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and
>>> sums) so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails,
>>> rails source. There are only two rat output files. This isn't a
>>> showstopper but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>>>
>> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear
>>> requirement for these files to have such a license. It's worth
>>> considering adding a license if only to clean up the rat output
>>> but no issue from me.
>>>
>> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add them.
>>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>>
>>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE
>>> and NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src
>>> distributions.
>>>
>> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or
>>> license information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for
>>> license information before this file can be included. Or the
>>> license covering this file needs to be identified and added to the
>>> file.
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
>>> referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license
>>> would be fine.
>>
>> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE
>> files. They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will add
>> them.
>>
>> I will re-spin the release.
>>> Craig
>>
>> Thanks
>> Shanti
>>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through
>>>> and cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
>>>> artificats are available at http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
>>>> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>>
>>>> Shanti
>>>
>>> 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!
>>>
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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Prashant Srinivasan <Pr...@Sun.COM>.
+1.
-ps
Sheetal Patil wrote:
> +1
>
> Regards,
> Sheetal
>
> On 04/10/09 14:56, William Sobel wrote:
>>
>> thanks a lot Craig and Shanti.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Will Sobel - UC Berkeley
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>
>>> Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
>>> a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
>>> b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all the
>>> rat outputs consistenly
>>> c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the missing
>>> third-party plugins.
>>> d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the rails
>>> plugin 'rorclassify'.
>>>
>>> Please review and VOTE.
>>>
>>> Shanti
>>>
>>> Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>> Craig,
>>>> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>>>>
>>>> Shanti
>>>>
>>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>>> Hi Shanti,
>>>>>
>>>>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>>>>
>>>>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and
>>>>> sums) so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails,
>>>>> rails source. There are only two rat output files. This isn't a
>>>>> showstopper but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>>>>>
>>>> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>>>>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear
>>>>> requirement for these files to have such a license. It's worth
>>>>> considering adding a license if only to clean up the rat output
>>>>> but no issue from me.
>>>>>
>>>> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add them.
>>>>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>>>>
>>>>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE
>>>>> and NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src
>>>>> distributions.
>>>>>
>>>> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>>>>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or
>>>>> license information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for
>>>>> license information before this file can be included. Or the
>>>>> license covering this file needs to be identified and added to the
>>>>> file.
>>>>>
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>>>>
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>>>>
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>>>>
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>>>>
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>>>>
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>>>>
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>>>>
>>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>>>>
>>>>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>>>>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
>>>>> referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license
>>>>> would be fine.
>>>>
>>>> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE
>>>> files. They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will add
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> I will re-spin the release.
>>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Shanti
>>>>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through
>>>>>> and cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
>>>>>> artificats are available at
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>>>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>>>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
>>>>>> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shanti
>>>>>
>>>>> 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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Sheetal Patil <Sh...@Sun.COM>.
+1
Regards,
Sheetal
On 04/10/09 14:56, William Sobel wrote:
>
> thanks a lot Craig and Shanti.
>
> +1
>
> Will Sobel - UC Berkeley
>
> On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>
>> Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
>> a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
>> b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all the
>> rat outputs consistenly
>> c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the missing
>> third-party plugins.
>> d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the rails
>> plugin 'rorclassify'.
>>
>> Please review and VOTE.
>>
>> Shanti
>>
>> Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>> Craig,
>>> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>>>
>>> Shanti
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>> Hi Shanti,
>>>>
>>>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>>>
>>>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>>>
>>>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and
>>>> sums) so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails,
>>>> rails source. There are only two rat output files. This isn't a
>>>> showstopper but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>>>>
>>> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>>>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear
>>>> requirement for these files to have such a license. It's worth
>>>> considering adding a license if only to clean up the rat output but
>>>> no issue from me.
>>>>
>>> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add them.
>>>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>>>
>>>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE
>>>> and NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src
>>>> distributions.
>>>>
>>> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>>>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or
>>>> license information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for
>>>> license information before this file can be included. Or the
>>>> license covering this file needs to be identified and added to the
>>>> file.
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>>>
>>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>>>
>>>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>>>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
>>>> referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license
>>>> would be fine.
>>>
>>> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE
>>> files. They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will add
>>> them.
>>>
>>> I will re-spin the release.
>>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Shanti
>>>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through and
>>>>> cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
>>>>> artificats are available at
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
>>>>> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shanti
>>>>
>>>> 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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by William Sobel <ws...@eecs.berkeley.edu>.
thanks a lot Craig and Shanti.
+1
Will Sobel - UC Berkeley
On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
> Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
> a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
> b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all the
> rat outputs consistenly
> c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the missing
> third-party plugins.
> d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the rails
> plugin 'rorclassify'.
>
> Please review and VOTE.
>
> Shanti
>
> Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>> Craig,
>> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>>
>> Shanti
>>
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> Hi Shanti,
>>>
>>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>>
>>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>>
>>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and
>>> sums) so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails,
>>> rails source. There are only two rat output files. This isn't a
>>> showstopper but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>>>
>> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear
>>> requirement for these files to have such a license. It's worth
>>> considering adding a license if only to clean up the rat output
>>> but no issue from me.
>>>
>> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add them.
>>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>>
>>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE
>>> and NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src
>>> distributions.
>>>
>> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or
>>> license information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for
>>> license information before this file can be included. Or the
>>> license covering this file needs to be identified and added to the
>>> file.
>>>
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
>>> attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
>>> referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license
>>> would be fine.
>>
>> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE
>> files. They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will add
>> them.
>>
>> I will re-spin the release.
>>> Craig
>>
>> Thanks
>> Shanti
>>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through
>>>> and cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
>>>> artificats are available at http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
>>>> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>>
>>>> Shanti
>>>
>>> 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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@Sun.COM>.
Okay. I've re-spun the release. I fixed the following :
a) Added NOTICE and LICENSE files to the source packages
b) Generated rat outputs for the binary packages and renamed all the rat
outputs consistenly
c) Fixed the rails NOTICE and LICENSE files to include the missing
third-party plugins.
d) Added apache license headers to the Release Notes, and the rails
plugin 'rorclassify'.
Please review and VOTE.
Shanti
Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
> Craig,
> Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
>
> Shanti
>
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Hi Shanti,
>>
>> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>>
>> I verified signatures; all ok.
>>
>> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and sums)
>> so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails, rails
>> source. There are only two rat output files. This isn't a showstopper
>> but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>>
> Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
>> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear requirement
>> for these files to have such a license. It's worth considering adding
>> a license if only to clean up the rat output but no issue from me.
>>
> It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add them.
>> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>>
>> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE and
>> NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src distributions.
>>
> You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
>> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or license
>> information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for license
>> information before this file can be included. Or the license covering
>> this file needs to be identified and added to the file.
>>
>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>>
>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>>
>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>>
>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>>
>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>>
>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>>
>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>>
>> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>>
>> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
>> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
>> referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license would
>> be fine.
>
> I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
> They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will add them.
>
> I will re-spin the release.
>> Craig
>
> Thanks
> Shanti
>> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through and
>>> cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
>>> artificats are available at http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>>
>>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
>>> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>>
>>> Shanti
>>
>> 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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@Sun.COM>.
Craig,
Thanks very much for checking this out. My answers below :
Shanti
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Shanti,
>
> Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
>
> I verified signatures; all ok.
>
> There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and sums)
> so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails, rails
> source. There are only two rat output files. This isn't a showstopper
> but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
>
Okay. I'll run rat on the other two as well.
> The release notes have no license but there's not a clear requirement
> for these files to have such a license. It's worth considering adding
> a license if only to clean up the rat output but no issue from me.
>
It seemed odd to add hdrs to release notes - I guess I can add them.
> But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
>
> The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE and
> NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src distributions.
>
You are right. This is probably a bug in the build script.
> The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or license
> information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for license
> information before this file can be included. Or the license covering
> this file needs to be identified and added to the file.
>
> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
>
> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
>
> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
>
> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
>
> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
>
> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
>
> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
>
> apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
>
> ... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
> external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
> referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license would
> be fine.
I have mentioned acts_as_network etc. in the LICENSE and NOTICE files.
They are all MIT license. I have left out a couple. Will add them.
I will re-spin the release.
> Craig
Thanks
Shanti
> On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>
>> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through and
>> cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The artificats
>> are available at http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
>> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called
>> 'php-rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>>
>> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
>> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>>
>> Shanti
>
> 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] Olio 0.1 Release
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Shanti,
Much improved compared to last time. Lots of work respinning.
I verified signatures; all ok.
There are four artifacts (times tar.gz and .zip; plus sigs and sums)
so there should be four rat outputs: php, php source, rails, rails
source. There are only two rat output files. This isn't a showstopper
but just an inconvenience for reviewers.
The release notes have no license but there's not a clear requirement
for these files to have such a license. It's worth considering adding
a license if only to clean up the rat output but no issue from me.
But I found some issues that make me -1 on release:
The rat output for php and rails source doesn't show the LICENSE and
NOTICE files, and indeed, these are missing from the src distributions.
The following files don't appear to contain any copyright or license
information at all. The author(s) need to be contacted for license
information before this file can be included. Or the license covering
this file needs to be identified and added to the file.
apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
acts_as_network/lib/zetetic/acts/network.rb
apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
acts_as_network/test/network_test.rb
apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
acts_as_network/test/schema.rb
apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
acts_as_network/test/test_helper.rb
apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
acts_as_taggable/lib/acts_as_taggable.rb
apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
acts_as_taggable/lib/tag.rb
apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
attachment_fu/lib/geometry.rb
apache-olio-rails-src-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk/vendor/plugins/
attachment_fu/lib/technoweenie/attachment_fu.rb
... many more .rb files. Perhaps these files are covered by an
external license that I didn't see? If so, a comment in the files
referencing the copyright holder and a reference to the license would
be fine.
Craig
On Apr 8, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
> Sorry it took so long. I had a lot of licenses to sort through and
> cleanup. I believe I finally have resolved everything. The
> artificats are available at http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1/
> The rat outputs are available in the same directory and called 'php-
> rat.out' and 'rails-rat.out'.
>
> Please take a look and vote your approval ASAP but no later than
> 4/10. If you find any issues, I will re-spin.
>
> Shanti
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!