You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@rave.apache.org by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> on 2011/08/01 15:00:52 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.2-incubating Release Candidate
I noticed a couple of "issues" with the LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files: some
new, and some we overlooked for the first 0.1-incubating release as well.
A minor remark concerns the NOTICE and LICENSE files added for rave-commons
under src/main/resources/META-INF.
These are not needed as by default the remote-resources plugin already adds
these automatically as such.
And, if additional NOTICE and LICENSE attributions are needed we can use the
same solution as already used for rave-shindig and rave-portal, e.g. use the
src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/ folder to provided "snippets" only to
append to these files.
However, what is missing in the produced rave-commons jar artifact is the
DISCLAIMER file...
As the DISCLAIMER file is required for incubator produced artifacts, IMO this is
a blocker for the release :(
While I was checking out the other, automatically generated, artifacts in the
Maven repository, none of the -javadoc and -sources jars are "valid" from the
legal requirements concerning these files. For the rave-commons module the
DISCLAIMER file is missing from these files and for the rave-shindig and
rave-portal modules the -javadoc and -sources jars don't even contain required
LICENSE/NOTICE files...
To fix the latter, we'll probably have to modify the usage and/or configuration
of the maven javadoc and sources plugins for war type modules, and/or maybe even
disable them on war projects?
Other than the above, I verified the binary downloads and source distribution
and everything else checked out to be fine and good and would look like a fine
release to me. Good job again Matt!
While missing or or more LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files within those
automatically generated artifacts might be troublesome, I suspect there might be
plenty other projects "missing" out on this too, including TLP/non-incubator
projects. So, if only for this, this might still be acceptable (maybe with a
grunt) for an incubator release.
However the missing DISCLAIMER file from the rave-commons jar artifact IMO is
not acceptable and therefore I think I'll have to vote -1 :(
Ate
On 07/29/2011 10:10 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
> Discussion thread for vote on 0.2-incubating release candidate.
>
> For more information on the release process, checkout -
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>
> Some of the things to check before voting are:
> - can you run the demo binaries
> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE, NOTICE and
> DISCLAIMER files
> - are all of the staged jars signed and the signature verifiable
> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.2-incubating Release Candidate
Posted by "Franklin, Matthew B." <mf...@mitre.org>.
On 8/1/11 9:11 AM, "Ross Gardler" <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>Once again Ate, thanks for your attention to detail.
>
>Matt, it can be disheartening when someone as detailed as Ate reviews
>releases for us.
Its all part of the process :)
>However, please take heart from the fact that
>spotting these things really early like this gets everything in a
>solid state for later releases when there is, potentially, much more
>to do.
+1
>
>Thank you Matt for getting it together like this.
No problem
>
>(by the way, I recently blogged about how developers like Matt and Ate
>are critical to the success of a project (although this quote is from
>Stephen Walli): "Without such discipline at the top, I believe no
>project can succeed regardless of whether it¹s academic, IT, or
>government. This is why Apache and Eclipse and Linux have such well
>defined and documented engineering disciplines around them, and why
>they succeed."
>
>http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2011/07/22/writing-good-software/
>
>The Rave project owes a great deal to the work of Matt and Ate - thanks
>guys.
>
>Ross
>
>On 1 August 2011 14:00, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
>> I noticed a couple of "issues" with the LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files:
>> some new, and some we overlooked for the first 0.1-incubating release as
>> well.
>>
>> A minor remark concerns the NOTICE and LICENSE files added for
>>rave-commons
>> under src/main/resources/META-INF.
>> These are not needed as by default the remote-resources plugin already
>>adds
>> these automatically as such.
>> And, if additional NOTICE and LICENSE attributions are needed we can
>>use the
>> same solution as already used for rave-shindig and rave-portal, e.g.
>>use the
>> src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/ folder to provided "snippets"
>>only to
>> append to these files.
>>
>> However, what is missing in the produced rave-commons jar artifact is
>>the
>> DISCLAIMER file...
>> As the DISCLAIMER file is required for incubator produced artifacts, IMO
>> this is a blocker for the release :(
>>
>> While I was checking out the other, automatically generated, artifacts
>>in
>> the Maven repository, none of the -javadoc and -sources jars are "valid"
>> from the legal requirements concerning these files. For the rave-commons
>> module the DISCLAIMER file is missing from these files and for the
>> rave-shindig and rave-portal modules the -javadoc and -sources jars
>>don't
>> even contain required LICENSE/NOTICE files...
>> To fix the latter, we'll probably have to modify the usage and/or
>> configuration of the maven javadoc and sources plugins for war type
>>modules,
>> and/or maybe even disable them on war projects?
>>
>> Other than the above, I verified the binary downloads and source
>> distribution and everything else checked out to be fine and good and
>>would
>> look like a fine release to me. Good job again Matt!
>>
>> While missing or or more LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files within those
>> automatically generated artifacts might be troublesome, I suspect there
>> might be plenty other projects "missing" out on this too, including
>> TLP/non-incubator projects. So, if only for this, this might still be
>> acceptable (maybe with a grunt) for an incubator release.
>>
>> However the missing DISCLAIMER file from the rave-commons jar artifact
>>IMO
>> is not acceptable and therefore I think I'll have to vote -1 :(
>>
>> Ate
>>
>> On 07/29/2011 10:10 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>>
>>> Discussion thread for vote on 0.2-incubating release candidate.
>>>
>>> For more information on the release process, checkout -
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>>>
>>> Some of the things to check before voting are:
>>> - can you run the demo binaries
>>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
>>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE, NOTICE
>>>and
>>> DISCLAIMER files
>>> - are all of the staged jars signed and the signature verifiable
>>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>Programme Leader (Open Development)
>OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.2-incubating Release Candidate
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Once again Ate, thanks for your attention to detail.
Matt, it can be disheartening when someone as detailed as Ate reviews
releases for us. However, please take heart from the fact that
spotting these things really early like this gets everything in a
solid state for later releases when there is, potentially, much more
to do.
Thank you Matt for getting it together like this.
(by the way, I recently blogged about how developers like Matt and Ate
are critical to the success of a project (although this quote is from
Stephen Walli): "Without such discipline at the top, I believe no
project can succeed regardless of whether it’s academic, IT, or
government. This is why Apache and Eclipse and Linux have such well
defined and documented engineering disciplines around them, and why
they succeed."
http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2011/07/22/writing-good-software/
The Rave project owes a great deal to the work of Matt and Ate - thanks guys.
Ross
On 1 August 2011 14:00, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
> I noticed a couple of "issues" with the LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files:
> some new, and some we overlooked for the first 0.1-incubating release as
> well.
>
> A minor remark concerns the NOTICE and LICENSE files added for rave-commons
> under src/main/resources/META-INF.
> These are not needed as by default the remote-resources plugin already adds
> these automatically as such.
> And, if additional NOTICE and LICENSE attributions are needed we can use the
> same solution as already used for rave-shindig and rave-portal, e.g. use the
> src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/ folder to provided "snippets" only to
> append to these files.
>
> However, what is missing in the produced rave-commons jar artifact is the
> DISCLAIMER file...
> As the DISCLAIMER file is required for incubator produced artifacts, IMO
> this is a blocker for the release :(
>
> While I was checking out the other, automatically generated, artifacts in
> the Maven repository, none of the -javadoc and -sources jars are "valid"
> from the legal requirements concerning these files. For the rave-commons
> module the DISCLAIMER file is missing from these files and for the
> rave-shindig and rave-portal modules the -javadoc and -sources jars don't
> even contain required LICENSE/NOTICE files...
> To fix the latter, we'll probably have to modify the usage and/or
> configuration of the maven javadoc and sources plugins for war type modules,
> and/or maybe even disable them on war projects?
>
> Other than the above, I verified the binary downloads and source
> distribution and everything else checked out to be fine and good and would
> look like a fine release to me. Good job again Matt!
>
> While missing or or more LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files within those
> automatically generated artifacts might be troublesome, I suspect there
> might be plenty other projects "missing" out on this too, including
> TLP/non-incubator projects. So, if only for this, this might still be
> acceptable (maybe with a grunt) for an incubator release.
>
> However the missing DISCLAIMER file from the rave-commons jar artifact IMO
> is not acceptable and therefore I think I'll have to vote -1 :(
>
> Ate
>
> On 07/29/2011 10:10 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>
>> Discussion thread for vote on 0.2-incubating release candidate.
>>
>> For more information on the release process, checkout -
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>>
>> Some of the things to check before voting are:
>> - can you run the demo binaries
>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE, NOTICE and
>> DISCLAIMER files
>> - are all of the staged jars signed and the signature verifiable
>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>>
>
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
RE: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.2-incubating Release Candidate
Posted by "Ciancetta, Jesse E." <jc...@mitre.org>.
>>However the missing DISCLAIMER file from the rave-commons jar artifact
>>IMO is
>>not acceptable and therefore I think I'll have to vote -1 :(
>
>I will create issues for the fixing the files and assign them to 0.3.
>
>The real question now is, do we fix them and spin 0.3 now or do we just
>wait for next month?
I think it's a good idea to go ahead and log, fix and verify the issues Ate identified now, but I think we should just wait for next month to do the actual 0.3 release.
I don't think there is any real need to jump to 0.3 just to push out a release out at this point. I think the value in the monthly releases right now is to keep pushing things forward (setting a target date, pushing to get the tickets implemented, etc) and I think what's been done for 0.2 has realized that value already.
>>
>>Ate
>>
>>On 07/29/2011 10:10 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>> Discussion thread for vote on 0.2-incubating release candidate.
>>>
>>> For more information on the release process, checkout -
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>>>
>>> Some of the things to check before voting are:
>>> - can you run the demo binaries
>>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
>>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE, NOTICE
>>>and
>>> DISCLAIMER files
>>> - are all of the staged jars signed and the signature verifiable
>>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.2-incubating Release Candidate
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
On 08/01/2011 03:27 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
> On 8/1/11 9:00 AM, "Ate Douma"<at...@douma.nu> wrote:
>
>> I noticed a couple of "issues" with the LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files:
>> some
>> new, and some we overlooked for the first 0.1-incubating release as well.
>>
>> A minor remark concerns the NOTICE and LICENSE files added for
>> rave-commons
>> under src/main/resources/META-INF.
>> These are not needed as by default the remote-resources plugin already
>> adds
>> these automatically as such.
>> And, if additional NOTICE and LICENSE attributions are needed we can use
>> the
>> same solution as already used for rave-shindig and rave-portal, e.g. use
>> the
>> src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/ folder to provided "snippets" only
>> to
>> append to these files.
>>
>> However, what is missing in the produced rave-commons jar artifact is the
>> DISCLAIMER file...
>> As the DISCLAIMER file is required for incubator produced artifacts, IMO
>> this is
>> a blocker for the release :(
>
> Oops. Missed that one :)
>
>>
>> While I was checking out the other, automatically generated, artifacts in
>> the
>> Maven repository, none of the -javadoc and -sources jars are "valid" from
>> the
>> legal requirements concerning these files. For the rave-commons module
>> the
>> DISCLAIMER file is missing from these files and for the rave-shindig and
>> rave-portal modules the -javadoc and -sources jars don't even contain
>> required
>> LICENSE/NOTICE files...
>> To fix the latter, we'll probably have to modify the usage and/or
>> configuration
>> of the maven javadoc and sources plugins for war type modules, and/or
>> maybe even
>> disable them on war projects?
>
> I don't think we should disable them. Anyone have an idea of how to
> modify the plugin configuration to add the files?
I don't have a concrete solution at hand yet, but I'm pretty sure this to be
fixable through proper configuration/customization. It will just take some
research and tweaking time, which I regrettably don't have this week.
So if someone else wants to pick this up, please do, otherwise I'm willing to
pick it up or take over next week if not resolved by then.
>
>>
>> Other than the above, I verified the binary downloads and source
>> distribution
>> and everything else checked out to be fine and good and would look like a
>> fine
>> release to me. Good job again Matt!
>>
>> While missing or or more LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files within those
>> automatically generated artifacts might be troublesome, I suspect there
>> might be
>> plenty other projects "missing" out on this too, including
>> TLP/non-incubator
>> projects. So, if only for this, this might still be acceptable (maybe
>> with a
>> grunt) for an incubator release.
>>
>> However the missing DISCLAIMER file from the rave-commons jar artifact
>> IMO is
>> not acceptable and therefore I think I'll have to vote -1 :(
>
> I will create issues for the fixing the files and assign them to 0.3.
>
> The real question now is, do we fix them and spin 0.3 now or do we just
> wait for next month?
My preference would be, during these early stages, to wait until the next month.
I consider getting the standard monthly release cycle working, and everyone
adapting to that, more important than interrupting it just to get a failed
release repaired.
AFAIK nobody (yet) is very dependent on these release artifacts to be publicly
available, so working from trunk primarily anyway.
This will change the closer we get to a "production" quality version of Rave,
but right now we're not there yet.
So +1 for waiting for the next monthly release cycle.
Ate
>
>>
>> Ate
>>
>> On 07/29/2011 10:10 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>> Discussion thread for vote on 0.2-incubating release candidate.
>>>
>>> For more information on the release process, checkout -
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>>>
>>> Some of the things to check before voting are:
>>> - can you run the demo binaries
>>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
>>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE, NOTICE
>>> and
>>> DISCLAIMER files
>>> - are all of the staged jars signed and the signature verifiable
>>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.2-incubating Release Candidate
Posted by "Franklin, Matthew B." <mf...@mitre.org>.
On 8/1/11 9:00 AM, "Ate Douma" <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
>I noticed a couple of "issues" with the LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files:
>some
>new, and some we overlooked for the first 0.1-incubating release as well.
>
>A minor remark concerns the NOTICE and LICENSE files added for
>rave-commons
>under src/main/resources/META-INF.
>These are not needed as by default the remote-resources plugin already
>adds
>these automatically as such.
>And, if additional NOTICE and LICENSE attributions are needed we can use
>the
>same solution as already used for rave-shindig and rave-portal, e.g. use
>the
>src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/ folder to provided "snippets" only
>to
>append to these files.
>
>However, what is missing in the produced rave-commons jar artifact is the
>DISCLAIMER file...
>As the DISCLAIMER file is required for incubator produced artifacts, IMO
>this is
>a blocker for the release :(
Oops. Missed that one :)
>
>While I was checking out the other, automatically generated, artifacts in
>the
>Maven repository, none of the -javadoc and -sources jars are "valid" from
>the
>legal requirements concerning these files. For the rave-commons module
>the
>DISCLAIMER file is missing from these files and for the rave-shindig and
>rave-portal modules the -javadoc and -sources jars don't even contain
>required
>LICENSE/NOTICE files...
>To fix the latter, we'll probably have to modify the usage and/or
>configuration
>of the maven javadoc and sources plugins for war type modules, and/or
>maybe even
>disable them on war projects?
I don't think we should disable them. Anyone have an idea of how to
modify the plugin configuration to add the files?
>
>Other than the above, I verified the binary downloads and source
>distribution
>and everything else checked out to be fine and good and would look like a
>fine
>release to me. Good job again Matt!
>
>While missing or or more LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER files within those
>automatically generated artifacts might be troublesome, I suspect there
>might be
>plenty other projects "missing" out on this too, including
>TLP/non-incubator
>projects. So, if only for this, this might still be acceptable (maybe
>with a
>grunt) for an incubator release.
>
>However the missing DISCLAIMER file from the rave-commons jar artifact
>IMO is
>not acceptable and therefore I think I'll have to vote -1 :(
I will create issues for the fixing the files and assign them to 0.3.
The real question now is, do we fix them and spin 0.3 now or do we just
wait for next month?
>
>Ate
>
>On 07/29/2011 10:10 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>> Discussion thread for vote on 0.2-incubating release candidate.
>>
>> For more information on the release process, checkout -
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>>
>> Some of the things to check before voting are:
>> - can you run the demo binaries
>> - can you build the contents of source-release.zip and svn tag
>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required LICENSE, NOTICE
>>and
>> DISCLAIMER files
>> - are all of the staged jars signed and the signature verifiable
>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on a public server
>>
>