You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@Sun.COM> on 2009/03/31 00:09:57 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are
no major problems.
All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated
many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
The release artifacts are available at :
http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
Shanti
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> > On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
> >
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com>
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
> > > > > We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > are no
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > major problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
> updated
> > > > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE
> files.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the
> > correct headers.
> >
> > AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
> >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
> >
> > There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
> > copyright headers.
> > It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
> >
>
> Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original location
> in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun
> copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the
> Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not
> lost.
So long as there is permission from the owner for doing so - which I
assume is the case here?
> There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of
> file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the <!--
> format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
>
> If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be
> noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
+1
> Craig
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The release artifacts are available at :
> > > > > http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > SVN :
> > >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement.
> > >
> > >
> > > > MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
> > > > uploaded to a server.
> > > >
> > > > Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I have now uploaded the KEYS file to
> > > http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cannot read these:
> > > >
> > > > You don't have permission to access
> > > > /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt
> on
> > > >
> > > this server.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't have permission to access
> > > >
> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on
> > > >
> > > this server.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fixed permissions.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I shall fix this.
> > >
> > > Shanti
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> > On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
> >
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com>
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
> > > > > We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > are no
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > major problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
> updated
> > > > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE
> files.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the
> > correct headers.
> >
> > AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
> >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
> >
> > There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
> > copyright headers.
> > It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
> >
>
> Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original location
> in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun
> copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the
> Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not
> lost.
So long as there is permission from the owner for doing so - which I
assume is the case here?
> There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of
> file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the <!--
> format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
>
> If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be
> noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
+1
> Craig
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The release artifacts are available at :
> > > > > http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > SVN :
> > >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement.
> > >
> > >
> > > > MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
> > > > uploaded to a server.
> > > >
> > > > Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I have now uploaded the KEYS file to
> > > http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cannot read these:
> > > >
> > > > You don't have permission to access
> > > > /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt
> on
> > > >
> > > this server.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't have permission to access
> > > >
> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on
> > > >
> > > this server.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fixed permissions.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I shall fix this.
> > >
> > > Shanti
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 31/03/2009, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> > Craig L Russell wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
> > updated
> > > > > > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE
> > files.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the
> > > > correct headers.
> > > >
> > > > AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
> > > >
> > > > There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
> > > > copyright headers.
> > > > It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original location
> > in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun
> > copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the
> > Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not
> > lost.
> > >
> > > There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of
> > file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the <!--
> > format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
> > >
> > > If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be
> > noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
> > >
> > >
> > Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and all
> > source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no other
> > copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from third-party
> > plugins which according to
> > http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be
> > left where they are - so I didn't touch them.
>
>
> See my other mail - I don't think they should be in SVN.
>
>
> > However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code and
> > we can't insert any notices in them.
>
>
> RAT takes note of some generated files - not sure exactly what it
> looks for, but if you can add the necessary line to the file - or even
> a line that tells humans it is generate - that would be good.
>
>
> > I assume this is acceptable. We have
> > binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code with no
> > notices at all which is what RAT is flagging.
> >
> > For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking in
> > the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses).
>
There also appears to be a compile & runtime dependency on Faban, which is CDDL.
This needs to be documented in the README and N&L files.
> Does the 3rd party source really need to be in SVN?
>
>
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >
> > Shanti
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
> updated
> > > > > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE
> files.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the
> > > correct headers.
> > >
> > > AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
> > >
> > >
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
> > >
> > > There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
> > > copyright headers.
> > > It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
> > >
> >
> > Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original location
> in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun
> copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the
> Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not
> lost.
> >
> > There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of
> file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the <!--
> format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
> >
> > If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be
> noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
> >
> >
> Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and all
> source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no other
> copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from third-party
> plugins which according to
> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be
> left where they are - so I didn't touch them.
See my other mail - I don't think they should be in SVN.
> However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code and
> we can't insert any notices in them.
RAT takes note of some generated files - not sure exactly what it
looks for, but if you can add the necessary line to the file - or even
a line that tells humans it is generate - that would be good.
> I assume this is acceptable. We have
> binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code with no
> notices at all which is what RAT is flagging.
>
> For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking in
> the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses).
Does the 3rd party source really need to be in SVN?
> > Craig
> >
> >
> Shanti
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN.
> >
> > Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby
> license:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> >
> > This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code.
> >
>
> There are a few parts in the olio distribution that we need to consider:
>
> 1. Olio code written in Ruby that we wrote and license under Apache
> license.
Yes.
> 2. Unmodified third party Ruby code under the Ruby license. The
> resolved.html says we can have an external dependency on these files. We
> just cannot distribute them. So we need to remove the files from the
> distribution and provide instructions for our users how to obtain and
> install them. I'd guess that the Rails implementation (assuming that we
> depend on some specific unmodified version of Rails) falls into this
> category.
I would think so too.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.
> > >
> >
> > Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)?
> >
>
> Verbatim is preferred, as we can't assume that a link can be followed just
> because a user has obtained the distribution.
Sorry, I meant a local link, e.g. LICENSE mentions the file
LICENCE_BSD.txt which is preferably in the same directory. It's
important that the user can start with the LICENSE file and find all
the licenses without having to search the directories to find them.
> >
> >
> > Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file.
> >
>
> RIght. No matter how many times I read them, I cannot remember the rules
> without having them in front of me.
AIUI, the NOTICE file is supposed to be usable in an "About" box, so
needs to hold the minimum necessary. I find that helps me remember.
> Craig
>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
As I understand it, no.
The files need to be called LICENSE and NOTICE or possibly NOTICE.txt etc.
S.
On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
> Since we have two packages with different LICENSE and NOTICE files, is it
> okay to name them as follows :
> . LICENSE_php.txt, NOTICE_php.txt
> . LICENSE_rails.txt, NOTICE_rails.txt
>
> Shanti
>
>
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sebb wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN.
> > >
> > > Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby
> license:
> > >
> > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> > >
> > > This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code.
> > >
> >
> > There are a few parts in the olio distribution that we need to consider:
> >
> > 1. Olio code written in Ruby that we wrote and license under Apache
> license.
> >
> > 2. Unmodified third party Ruby code under the Ruby license. The
> resolved.html says we can have an external dependency on these files. We
> just cannot distribute them. So we need to remove the files from the
> distribution and provide instructions for our users how to obtain and
> install them. I'd guess that the Rails implementation (assuming that we
> depend on some specific unmodified version of Rails) falls into this
> category.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)?
> > >
> >
> > Verbatim is preferred, as we can't assume that a link can be followed just
> because a user has obtained the distribution.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file.
> > >
> >
> > RIght. No matter how many times I read them, I cannot remember the rules
> without having them in front of me.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > Craig L Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@Sun.COM>.
Since we have two packages with different LICENSE and NOTICE files, is
it okay to name them as follows :
. LICENSE_php.txt, NOTICE_php.txt
. LICENSE_rails.txt, NOTICE_rails.txt
Shanti
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN.
>>
>> Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby
>> license:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>
>> This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code.
>
> There are a few parts in the olio distribution that we need to consider:
>
> 1. Olio code written in Ruby that we wrote and license under Apache
> license.
>
> 2. Unmodified third party Ruby code under the Ruby license. The
> resolved.html says we can have an external dependency on these files.
> We just cannot distribute them. So we need to remove the files from
> the distribution and provide instructions for our users how to obtain
> and install them. I'd guess that the Rails implementation (assuming
> that we depend on some specific unmodified version of Rails) falls
> into this category.
>>
>>
>>> Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.
>>
>> Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)?
>
> Verbatim is preferred, as we can't assume that a link can be followed
> just because a user has obtained the distribution.
>>
>>
>> Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file.
>
> RIght. No matter how many times I read them, I cannot remember the
> rules without having them in front of me.
>
> Craig
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@Sun.COM>.
Since we have two packages with different LICENSE and NOTICE files, is
it okay to name them as follows :
. LICENSE_php.txt, NOTICE_php.txt
. LICENSE_rails.txt, NOTICE_rails.txt
Shanti
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN.
>>
>> Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby
>> license:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>
>> This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code.
>
> There are a few parts in the olio distribution that we need to consider:
>
> 1. Olio code written in Ruby that we wrote and license under Apache
> license.
>
> 2. Unmodified third party Ruby code under the Ruby license. The
> resolved.html says we can have an external dependency on these files.
> We just cannot distribute them. So we need to remove the files from
> the distribution and provide instructions for our users how to obtain
> and install them. I'd guess that the Rails implementation (assuming
> that we depend on some specific unmodified version of Rails) falls
> into this category.
>>
>>
>>> Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.
>>
>> Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)?
>
> Verbatim is preferred, as we can't assume that a link can be followed
> just because a user has obtained the distribution.
>>
>>
>> Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file.
>
> RIght. No matter how many times I read them, I cannot remember the
> rules without having them in front of me.
>
> Craig
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sebb wrote:
> I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to
> SVN.
>
> Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby
> license:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code.
There are a few parts in the olio distribution that we need to consider:
1. Olio code written in Ruby that we wrote and license under Apache
license.
2. Unmodified third party Ruby code under the Ruby license. The
resolved.html says we can have an external dependency on these files.
We just cannot distribute them. So we need to remove the files from
the distribution and provide instructions for our users how to obtain
and install them. I'd guess that the Rails implementation (assuming
that we depend on some specific unmodified version of Rails) falls
into this category.
>
>
>> Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.
>
> Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)?
Verbatim is preferred, as we can't assume that a link can be followed
just because a user has obtained the distribution.
>
>
> Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file.
RIght. No matter how many times I read them, I cannot remember the
rules without having them in front of me.
Craig
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:01 PM, sebb wrote:
> I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to
> SVN.
>
> Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby
> license:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code.
There are a few parts in the olio distribution that we need to consider:
1. Olio code written in Ruby that we wrote and license under Apache
license.
2. Unmodified third party Ruby code under the Ruby license. The
resolved.html says we can have an external dependency on these files.
We just cannot distribute them. So we need to remove the files from
the distribution and provide instructions for our users how to obtain
and install them. I'd guess that the Rails implementation (assuming
that we depend on some specific unmodified version of Rails) falls
into this category.
>
>
>> Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.
>
> Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)?
Verbatim is preferred, as we can't assume that a link can be followed
just because a user has obtained the distribution.
>
>
> Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file.
RIght. No matter how many times I read them, I cannot remember the
rules without having them in front of me.
Craig
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>
>
> > Craig L Russell wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
> updated
> > > > > > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE
> files.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the
> > > > correct headers.
> > > >
> > > > AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
> > > >
> > > >
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
> > > >
> > > > There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
> > > > copyright headers.
> > > > It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original
> location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already
> the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by
> the Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's
> not lost.
> > >
> > > There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of
> file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the <!--
> format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
> > >
> > > If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be
> noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
> > >
> > >
> > Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and all
> source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no other
> copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from third-party
> plugins which according to
> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be
> left where they are - so I didn't touch them.
> >
>
> RIght, but they would need to be put into the NOTICE so people don't have
> to scour the release looking for third party copyright notices.
>
> >
> > However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code
> and we can't insert any notices in them. I assume this is acceptable.
> >
>
> Right. This is not an issue. You might note these in the release vote
> discussion of the RAT output.
>
>
> > We have binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code
> with no notices at all which is what RAT is flagging.
> >
>
> The binary files are ok. If RAT is flagging them then we would need to look
> at why RAT doesn't understand the file suffix.
>
> >
> > For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking in
> the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses).
> >
I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN.
Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby license:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code.
> Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.
Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)?
Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file.
> Craig
>
> >
> >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >
> > Shanti
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
>
>
> > Craig L Russell wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
> updated
> > > > > > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE
> files.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the
> > > > correct headers.
> > > >
> > > > AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
> > > >
> > > >
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
> > > >
> > > > There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
> > > > copyright headers.
> > > > It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original
> location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already
> the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by
> the Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's
> not lost.
> > >
> > > There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type of
> file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the <!--
> format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
> > >
> > > If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be
> noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
> > >
> > >
> > Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and all
> source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no other
> copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from third-party
> plugins which according to
> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be
> left where they are - so I didn't touch them.
> >
>
> RIght, but they would need to be put into the NOTICE so people don't have
> to scour the release looking for third party copyright notices.
>
> >
> > However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code
> and we can't insert any notices in them. I assume this is acceptable.
> >
>
> Right. This is not an issue. You might note these in the release vote
> discussion of the RAT output.
>
>
> > We have binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code
> with no notices at all which is what RAT is flagging.
> >
>
> The binary files are ok. If RAT is flagging them then we would need to look
> at why RAT doesn't understand the file suffix.
>
> >
> > For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking in
> the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses).
> >
I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN.
Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby license:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code.
> Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.
Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)?
Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file.
> Craig
>
> >
> >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >
> > Shanti
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
>>>>>> updated
>>>>>> many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE
>>>>>> files.
>>>
>>> However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without
>>> the
>>> correct headers.
>>>
>>> AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
>>>
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
>>>
>>> There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
>>> copyright headers.
>>> It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
>>
>> Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original
>> location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is
>> already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply
>> be replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the
>> original copyright so it's not lost.
>>
>> There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the
>> type of file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would
>> have the <!-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
>>
>> If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should
>> be noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
>>
> Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved
> and all source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we
> have no other copyright notices to move. The few other notices are
> from third-party plugins which according to http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
> should be left where they are - so I didn't touch them.
RIght, but they would need to be put into the NOTICE so people don't
have to scour the release looking for third party copyright notices.
>
> However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated
> code and we can't insert any notices in them. I assume this is
> acceptable.
Right. This is not an issue. You might note these in the release vote
discussion of the RAT output.
> We have binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party
> code with no notices at all which is what RAT is flagging.
The binary files are ok. If RAT is flagging them then we would need to
look at why RAT doesn't understand the file suffix.
>
> For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before
> checking in the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses).
Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.
Craig
>
>> Craig
>>
> Shanti
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
>>>>>> updated
>>>>>> many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE
>>>>>> files.
>>>
>>> However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without
>>> the
>>> correct headers.
>>>
>>> AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
>>>
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
>>>
>>> There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
>>> copyright headers.
>>> It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
>>
>> Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original
>> location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is
>> already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply
>> be replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the
>> original copyright so it's not lost.
>>
>> There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the
>> type of file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would
>> have the <!-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
>>
>> If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should
>> be noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
>>
> Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved
> and all source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we
> have no other copyright notices to move. The few other notices are
> from third-party plugins which according to http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
> should be left where they are - so I didn't touch them.
RIght, but they would need to be put into the NOTICE so people don't
have to scour the release looking for third party copyright notices.
>
> However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated
> code and we can't insert any notices in them. I assume this is
> acceptable.
Right. This is not an issue. You might note these in the release vote
discussion of the RAT output.
> We have binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party
> code with no notices at all which is what RAT is flagging.
The binary files are ok. If RAT is flagging them then we would need to
look at why RAT doesn't understand the file suffix.
>
> For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before
> checking in the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses).
Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.
Craig
>
>> Craig
>>
> Shanti
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@Sun.COM>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
>>>>> updated
>>>>> many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
>>
>> However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the
>> correct headers.
>>
>> AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
>>
>>
>> There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
>> copyright headers.
>> It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
>
> Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original
> location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is
> already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be
> replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the original
> copyright so it's not lost.
>
> There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type
> of file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the
> <!-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
>
> If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be
> noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
>
Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and
all source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no
other copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from
third-party plugins which according to
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be left where
they are - so I didn't touch them.
However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code
and we can't insert any notices in them. I assume this is acceptable. We
have binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code with
no notices at all which is what RAT is flagging.
For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking
in the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses).
> Craig
>
Shanti
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@Sun.COM>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
>>>>> updated
>>>>> many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
>>
>> However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the
>> correct headers.
>>
>> AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
>>
>>
>> There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
>> copyright headers.
>> It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
>
> Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original
> location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is
> already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be
> replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the original
> copyright so it's not lost.
>
> There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type
> of file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the
> <!-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
>
> If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be
> noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
>
Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and
all source files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no
other copyright notices to move. The few other notices are from
third-party plugins which according to
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be left where
they are - so I didn't touch them.
However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated code
and we can't insert any notices in them. I assume this is acceptable. We
have binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party code with
no notices at all which is what RAT is flagging.
For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking
in the code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses).
> Craig
>
Shanti
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
>>>> We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure
>>>> there
>> are no
>>>> major problems.
>>>>
>>>> All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
>>>> updated
>>>> many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE
>>>> files.
>
> However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the
> correct headers.
>
> AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
>
> There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
> copyright headers.
> It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original
location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is
already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be
replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the original
copyright so it's not lost.
There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type
of file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the
<!-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be
noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
Craig
>
>
>>>> The release artifacts are available at :
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> SVN :
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/
>>
>>>
>>>> Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement.
>>
>>> MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to
>>> be
>>> uploaded to a server.
>>>
>>> Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I have now uploaded the KEYS file to
>> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1.
>>
>>>
>>>> The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cannot read these:
>>>
>>> You don't have permission to access
>>> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on
>> this server.
>>>
>>> You don't have permission to access
>>> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on
>> this server.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Fixed permissions.
>>
>>> The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I shall fix this.
>>
>> Shanti
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
>>>> We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure
>>>> there
>> are no
>>>> major problems.
>>>>
>>>> All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
>>>> updated
>>>> many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE
>>>> files.
>
> However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the
> correct headers.
>
> AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
>
> There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
> copyright headers.
> It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their original
location in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is
already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be
replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the original
copyright so it's not lost.
There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type
of file, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the
<!-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.
If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should be
noted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.
Craig
>
>
>>>> The release artifacts are available at :
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> SVN :
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/
>>
>>>
>>>> Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement.
>>
>>> MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to
>>> be
>>> uploaded to a server.
>>>
>>> Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I have now uploaded the KEYS file to
>> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1.
>>
>>>
>>>> The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cannot read these:
>>>
>>> You don't have permission to access
>>> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on
>> this server.
>>>
>>> You don't have permission to access
>>> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on
>> this server.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Fixed permissions.
>>
>>> The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I shall fix this.
>>
>> Shanti
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
> > > We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there
> are no
> > > major problems.
> > >
> > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated
> > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the
correct headers.
AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-audit
There's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existing
copyright headers.
It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.
> > > The release artifacts are available at :
> > > http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
> >
> >
> >
> SVN :
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/
>
> >
> > > Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
> >
> >
> >
> I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement.
>
> > MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
> > uploaded to a server.
> >
> > Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
> >
> >
> >
> I have now uploaded the KEYS file to
> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1.
>
> >
> > > The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Cannot read these:
> >
> > You don't have permission to access
> > /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on
> this server.
> >
> > You don't have permission to access
> > /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on
> this server.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Fixed permissions.
>
> > The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> >
> >
> >
> I shall fix this.
>
> Shanti
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 31/03/2009, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> >
> > > On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
> > > > We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there
> > are no
> > > > major problems.
> > > >
> > > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated
> > > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
> > > >
> > > > The release artifacts are available at :
> > > > http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > SVN :
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/
>
>
> The SVN content/layout looks a bit odd.
>
> The directory
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk
>
> appears to have a complete copy of Rails in it.
>
> Is that really necessary?
> No wonder there are so many files without headers.
>
Also, the PHP source archive contains several jars.
Their Licenses don't appear to be present, and the NOTICE file does
not mention them.
Source archives should not normally include runtime jars, and it's not
clear if these particular jars are redistributable.
The binary PHP archive contains a file called
create_accessible_content.h. Looks odd to have a C/C++ header file in
there - but in fact it's an HTM(L) file. Not sure what happened there.
The RAILS binary archive contains several DIFF files, which surely
don't belong there?
It also contains the OlioDriver.jar, which contains some 3rd party
jars, as well as a jar called OlioDriver.jar. This latter appears to
be the "real" Olio code.
> >
> > >
> > > > Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement.
> >
> > > MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
> > > uploaded to a server.
> > >
> > > Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I have now uploaded the KEYS file to
> > http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1.
> >
> > >
> > > > The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Cannot read these:
> > >
> > > You don't have permission to access
> > > /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on
> > this server.
> > >
> > > You don't have permission to access
> > > /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on
> > this server.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Fixed permissions.
> >
> > > The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
> > >
> > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I shall fix this.
> >
> > Shanti
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 31/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
> > > We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there
> are no
> > > major problems.
> > >
> > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated
> > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
> > >
> > > The release artifacts are available at :
> > > http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
> >
> >
> >
> SVN :
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/
The SVN content/layout looks a bit odd.
The directory
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/webapp/rails/trunk
appears to have a complete copy of Rails in it.
Is that really necessary?
No wonder there are so many files without headers.
>
> >
> > > Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
> >
> >
> >
> I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement.
>
> > MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
> > uploaded to a server.
> >
> > Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
> >
> >
> >
> I have now uploaded the KEYS file to
> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1.
>
> >
> > > The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Cannot read these:
> >
> > You don't have permission to access
> > /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on
> this server.
> >
> > You don't have permission to access
> > /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on
> this server.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Fixed permissions.
>
> > The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> >
> >
> >
> I shall fix this.
>
> Shanti
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@Sun.COM>.
sebb wrote:
> On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
>
>> This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
>> We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no
>> major problems.
>>
>> All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated
>> many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
>>
>> The release artifacts are available at :
>> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
>>
>
> It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
>
>
SVN : https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/tags/release-0.1/
>> Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
>>
>
> Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
>
>
I can create zip files - didn't realize that it was a requirement.
> MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
> uploaded to a server.
>
> Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
>
>
I have now uploaded the KEYS file to
http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1.
>> The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
>>
>
> Cannot read these:
>
> You don't have permission to access
> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server.
>
> You don't have permission to access
> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server.
>
>
Fixed permissions.
> The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>
>
I shall fix this.
Shanti
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> Thanks for taking a look. The artifacts were uploaded prematurely and will
> be taken down.
>
> A couple of comments below as well...
>
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:22 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> > On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
> > > We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are
> no
> > > major problems.
> > >
> > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated
> > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
> > >
> > > The release artifacts are available at :
> > > http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
> > >
> >
> > It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
> >
> >
> > > Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
> > >
> >
> > Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
> >
> > MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
> > uploaded to a server.
> >
>
> I was able to download the key from subkeys.pgp.net
> gpg: key D39CE220: public key "Shanti Subramanyam (Shanti)
> <sh...@sun.com>" imported
> gpg: Total number processed: 1
> gpg: imported: 1
>
So can I now. Must have been a temporary problem my end. Sorry for the noise.
> >
> >
> > Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
> >
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/KEYS
>
> Craig
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
> > >
> >
> > Cannot read these:
> >
> > You don't have permission to access
> > /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on
> this server.
> >
> > You don't have permission to access
> > /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on
> this server.
> >
> > The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> >
> >
> >
> > > Shanti
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> 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] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> Thanks for taking a look. The artifacts were uploaded prematurely and will
> be taken down.
>
> A couple of comments below as well...
>
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:22 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> > On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
> > > We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are
> no
> > > major problems.
> > >
> > > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated
> > > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
> > >
> > > The release artifacts are available at :
> > > http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
> > >
> >
> > It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
> >
> >
> > > Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
> > >
> >
> > Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
> >
> > MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
> > uploaded to a server.
> >
>
> I was able to download the key from subkeys.pgp.net
> gpg: key D39CE220: public key "Shanti Subramanyam (Shanti)
> <sh...@sun.com>" imported
> gpg: Total number processed: 1
> gpg: imported: 1
>
So can I now. Must have been a temporary problem my end. Sorry for the noise.
> >
> >
> > Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
> >
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/KEYS
>
> Craig
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
> > >
> >
> > Cannot read these:
> >
> > You don't have permission to access
> > /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on
> this server.
> >
> > You don't have permission to access
> > /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on
> this server.
> >
> > The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> >
> >
> >
> > > Shanti
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> 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] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Sebb,
Thanks for taking a look. The artifacts were uploaded prematurely and
will be taken down.
A couple of comments below as well...
On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:22 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com>
> wrote:
>> This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
>> We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure
>> there are no
>> major problems.
>>
>> All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
>> updated
>> many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
>>
>> The release artifacts are available at :
>> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
>
> It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
>
>> Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
>
> Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
>
> MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
> uploaded to a server.
I was able to download the key from subkeys.pgp.net
gpg: key D39CE220: public key "Shanti Subramanyam (Shanti) <shanti.subramanyam@sun.com
>" imported
gpg: Total number processed: 1
gpg: imported: 1
>
>
> Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/KEYS
Craig
>
>
>> The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
>
> Cannot read these:
>
> You don't have permission to access
> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server.
>
> You don't have permission to access
> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server.
>
> The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>
>
>> Shanti
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
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] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Shanti Subramanyam <Sh...@Sun.COM>.
Sorry about that. This was because of my lack of understanding of the
process. I have removed the link now and will re-distribute artifacts
after approval.
Shanti
sebb wrote:
> I've just noticed that the download links for 0.1 are already in place at
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/olio/downloads.html
>
> and seem to be working.
>
> I thought the release vote had to succeed before publishing anything?
>
> See:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-distribution
>
> On 31/03/2009, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
>> > This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
>> > We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no
>> > major problems.
>> >
>> > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated
>> > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
>> >
>> > The release artifacts are available at :
>> > http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
>>
>>
>> It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
>>
>>
>> > Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
>>
>>
>> Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
>>
>> MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
>> uploaded to a server.
>>
>> Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
>>
>>
>> > The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
>>
>>
>> Cannot read these:
>>
>> You don't have permission to access
>> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server.
>>
>> You don't have permission to access
>> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server.
>>
>> The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>>
>>
>>
>> > Shanti
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
I've just noticed that the download links for 0.1 are already in place at
http://incubator.apache.org/olio/downloads.html
and seem to be working.
I thought the release vote had to succeed before publishing anything?
See:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-distribution
On 31/03/2009, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
> > This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
> > We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no
> > major problems.
> >
> > All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated
> > many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
> >
> > The release artifacts are available at :
> > http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
>
>
> It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
>
>
> > Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
>
>
> Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
>
> MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
> uploaded to a server.
>
> Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
>
>
> > The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
>
>
> Cannot read these:
>
> You don't have permission to access
> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server.
>
> You don't have permission to access
> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server.
>
> The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>
>
>
> > Shanti
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Sebb,
Thanks for taking a look. The artifacts were uploaded prematurely and
will be taken down.
A couple of comments below as well...
On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:22 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com>
> wrote:
>> This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
>> We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure
>> there are no
>> major problems.
>>
>> All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
>> updated
>> many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
>>
>> The release artifacts are available at :
>> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
>
> It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
>
>> Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
>
> Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
>
> MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
> uploaded to a server.
I was able to download the key from subkeys.pgp.net
gpg: key D39CE220: public key "Shanti Subramanyam (Shanti) <shanti.subramanyam@sun.com
>" imported
gpg: Total number processed: 1
gpg: imported: 1
>
>
> Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/olio/KEYS
Craig
>
>
>> The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
>
> Cannot read these:
>
> You don't have permission to access
> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server.
>
> You don't have permission to access
> /~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server.
>
> The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>
>
>> Shanti
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
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] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 30/03/2009, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE <Sh...@sun.com> wrote:
> This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
> We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there are no
> major problems.
>
> All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have updated
> many source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICE files.
>
> The release artifacts are available at :
> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
It would be helpful to have a pointer to the SVN tag.
> Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
Only tar.gz packages provided. Normally zip is provided as well.
MD5 hashes are OK, but cannot check sigs as key does not appear to be
uploaded to a server.
Can you provide a link to the KEYS file in SVN?
> The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
Cannot read these:
You don't have permission to access
/~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-php-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server.
You don't have permission to access
/~shanti/olio_0.1/apache-olio-rails-0.1.rat-output.txt on this server.
The NOTICE file in the archives does not follow the standard:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> Shanti
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Shanti,
Just a few comments:
There is a mysterious artifact apache-olio-rails-0.1
The rat-output.txt files have the wrong permissions. I get 403
forbidden trying to access them.
The signatures and md5 sums look ok.
Craig
On Mar 30, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote:
> This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
> We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there
> are no major problems.
>
> All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
> updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE,
> NOTICE files.
>
> The release artifacts are available at :
> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
>
> Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
>
> The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
>
> Shanti
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
+1
On Mar 30, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Shanti Subramanyam - PAE wrote:
> This is the first binary release of the Apache Olio project.
> We have fixed many bugs and have tested the releases to ensure there
> are no major problems.
>
> All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We have
> updated many source license/header files and added the LICENSE,
> NOTICE files.
>
> The release artifacts are available at :
> http://people.apache.org/~shanti/olio_0.1
>
> Each source and binary package has a MD5 and a Signature.
>
> The output of RAT is included in *-rat-output.txt.
>
> Shanti
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org