You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> on 2013/06/30 21:00:40 UTC
[VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
Release notes:
https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
Staging repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
Staged distribution:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
Staged Site:
http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
-- John von Neumann
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Mirko Friedenhagen <mf...@gmail.com>.
So probably this is:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=commit;h=893ca28a1da9d5f51ac03827af98bb730128f9f2
:-)
Regards Mirko
--
http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/
https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/
https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>
> Release notes:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>
> Staged distribution:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>
> Staged Site:
> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
>
> -- John von Neumann
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Tony Chemit <ch...@codelutin.com>.
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:00:40 -0400
Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
+1,
works fine for our projects.
thanks,
tony.
> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>
> Release notes:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>
> Staged distribution:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>
> Staged Site:
> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
>
> -- John von Neumann
>
>
>
>
>
--
Tony Chemit
--------------------
tél: +33 (0) 2 40 50 29 28
email: chemit@codelutin.com
http://www.codelutin.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Mirko Friedenhagen <mf...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding) tested with some projects.
Regards Mirko
--
http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/
https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/
https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>
> Release notes:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>
> Staged distribution:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>
> Staged Site:
> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
>
> -- John von Neumann
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
+1
2013/7/7 Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>:
> +1
>
> works fine here
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le dimanche 30 juin 2013 15:00:40 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>>
>> Release notes:
>> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18
>> 967
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>>
>> Staged distribution:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/mave
>> n/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>>
>> Staged Site:
>> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder, Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're
>> talking about.
>>
>> -- John von Neumann
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
--
Olivier Lamy
Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
+1
works fine here
Regards,
Hervé
Le dimanche 30 juin 2013 15:00:40 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>
> Release notes:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18
> 967
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>
> Staged distribution:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/mave
> n/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>
> Staged Site:
> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're
> talking about.
>
> -- John von Neumann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net>.
+1
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Baptiste MATHUS <bm...@batmat.net> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> 2013/7/1 sebb <se...@gmail.com>
>
> > On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious text:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> =========================================================================
> > >> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
> > ==
> > >> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
> > ==
> > >> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
> > ==
> > >>
> >
> =========================================================================
> > >>
> > >> This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be as
> > >> short as possible (but no shorter).
> > >>
> > >> ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
> > >>
> > >> ====================
> > >> Apache Maven
> > >> Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
> > >>
> > >> This product includes software developed at
> > >> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> > >> ==================
> > >>
> > >> Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed by"
> > >> - the distinction is important.
> > >>
> > >> Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party software,
> > >> but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
> > >> The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
> > >
> > > From what I can tell we have been failing this since August 2010.
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=blob;f=apache-maven/NOTICE.txt;hb=bfaf11090a212f8445f2ad929af8acce5a984bf0
> > >
> > > I can't find change history for
> > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html so I don't know if we
> > > have been failing all the time, or since it was changed.
> >
> > The leading text enclosed in == was never part of the NOTICE file;
> > AIUI it was added by Maven devs when producing the license plugin.
> >
> > Until fairly recently there was one ASF page which incorrectly said
> > "developed by" instead of "developed at"; AFAIK there are now no
> > incorrect references.
> >
> > > And I can see you've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5487
> > > to track this.
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Baptiste <Batmat> MATHUS - http://batmat.net
> Sauvez un arbre,
> Mangez un castor !
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Baptiste MATHUS <bm...@batmat.net>.
+1 (non-binding)
2013/7/1 sebb <se...@gmail.com>
> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious text:
> >>
> >>
> =========================================================================
> >> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
> ==
> >> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
> ==
> >> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
> ==
> >>
> =========================================================================
> >>
> >> This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be as
> >> short as possible (but no shorter).
> >>
> >> ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
> >>
> >> ====================
> >> Apache Maven
> >> Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
> >>
> >> This product includes software developed at
> >> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> >> ==================
> >>
> >> Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed by"
> >> - the distinction is important.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party software,
> >> but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
> >> The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
> >
> > From what I can tell we have been failing this since August 2010.
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=blob;f=apache-maven/NOTICE.txt;hb=bfaf11090a212f8445f2ad929af8acce5a984bf0
> >
> > I can't find change history for
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html so I don't know if we
> > have been failing all the time, or since it was changed.
>
> The leading text enclosed in == was never part of the NOTICE file;
> AIUI it was added by Maven devs when producing the license plugin.
>
> Until fairly recently there was one ASF page which incorrectly said
> "developed by" instead of "developed at"; AFAIK there are now no
> incorrect references.
>
> > And I can see you've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5487
> > to track this.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
Baptiste <Batmat> MATHUS - http://batmat.net
Sauvez un arbre,
Mangez un castor !
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious text:
>>
>> =========================================================================
>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of ==
>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0, ==
>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution. ==
>> =========================================================================
>>
>> This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be as
>> short as possible (but no shorter).
>>
>> ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
>>
>> ====================
>> Apache Maven
>> Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
>>
>> This product includes software developed at
>> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>> ==================
>>
>> Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed by"
>> - the distinction is important.
>>
>> Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party software,
>> but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
>> The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
>
> From what I can tell we have been failing this since August 2010.
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=blob;f=apache-maven/NOTICE.txt;hb=bfaf11090a212f8445f2ad929af8acce5a984bf0
>
> I can't find change history for
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html so I don't know if we
> have been failing all the time, or since it was changed.
The leading text enclosed in == was never part of the NOTICE file;
AIUI it was added by Maven devs when producing the license plugin.
Until fairly recently there was one ASF page which incorrectly said
"developed by" instead of "developed at"; AFAIK there are now no
incorrect references.
> And I can see you've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5487
> to track this.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
On 4 July 2013 13:14, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 July 2013 12:52, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 4 July 2013 12:32, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4 July 2013 11:05, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets
> and
> >> > license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
> >> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
> >> > currently have an exception for test data sets.
> >>
> >> I undertstand that some test data files cannot have AL headers.
> >>
> >> However, surely any exception which might be agreed does not cover
> >> unit test cases in Java files?
> >> Nor the poms needed to run the tests.
> >> There are several such in the source archive.
> >>
> >
> > Are these in src/test/resources/ or in src/it/ because if so they are
> test
> > data not software we distribute and build.
>
> One example is:
>
>
> maven-core/src/test/projects/lifecycle-executor/project-with-additional-lifecycle-elements/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/lifecycle/test/App.java
>
They are all in the rat exclusions list as test resources. They are test
data. They are not part of Maven core or part of the Maven plugins.
>
> They are all distributed, because they are in the source release.
>
> > Without inspecting each and every test data file and the corresponding
> test
> > case (which invokes the test case using e.g. maven verifier or maven
> > invoker... i.e. files in src/test/java which clearly must have a license
> > header) we cannot be certain that adding a license header will not affect
> > the results of the test... yes the vast majority of them can probably
> have
> > the header added successfully... but I do not see anyone standing up
> > willing to undertake that mammoth analysis task.
>
> Why not just add the header and see what breaks?
>
Aha! you miss the point.
These are all tests that pass *because* the bug they fix is fixed.
If we add the header, how do you know that adding the header does not
render the test useless.
If there is a regression the test is supposed to fail. If we add the header
and introduce a regression and the test does not fail *because* of adding
the header then we have rendered the test useless.
Thus we cannot "just see what breaks" because the tests are all passing
right now. Only by re-introducing the bug that the test was designed to
detect can we confirm that the presence of the header does not affect the
strength of the test.
The only way to be sure that adding the header does not affect the test
sensitivity is to inspect each test by hand, evaluate what it requires of
the test data and then see if adding the header will affect sensitivity.
> > I would much rather get an exception that lets us release and then turn
> the
> > screw and tighten which files need the exception to remain and which can
> > have the headers added as we progress through multiple releases. That is
> > the approach which will help the community as us taking what could be
> > *years* to get the test cases with headers in *every* place where they
> can
> > safely be put quite frankly would kill this project.
> >
> >
> >> > Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
> >> >
> >> > -1
> >> >
> >> > If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data
> sets,
> >> > then I would be happy to switch to +1.
> >> >
> >> > If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the
> NOTICE
> >> > files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as
> nobody
> >> on
> >> > the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation
> of
> >> the
> >> > ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
> >> >
> >> > If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the
> test
> >> > data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to
> do
> >> as
> >> > adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the
> risk
> >> of
> >> > invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
> >> > cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to
> change
> >> > such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file
> to
> >> > cover the test data.
> >> >
> >> > I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance
> role
> >> > that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
> >>
> >> I would not classify it as unfortunate.
> >>
> >> ASF committership and PMC membership are both privileges, not rights,
> >> and come with certain responsibilities.
> >> In particular to ensure that releases are available under the Apache
> >> License, and don't contain any suprises for the end users.
> >>
> >
> > I started the drive to get the licensing tidied up before you started
> > putting your attentions here:
> >
> https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/bfcf03d42c37bce5bf16a1ab689073109d191bf7
> >
> > I understand why the PMC has to do this...
> >
> > Quite frankly it was only when I groked what it means to be a member of
> the
> > ASF that I got the fuller understanding of the role of the PMC that I
> have
> > now.
> >
> > I think there are a lot of people in the community that do not understand
> > why the ASF does things the way it does.
>
> In that case they need to be helped to understand.
> IMO we could do a lot better at documenting the rationale for the
> procedures that have been developed.
>
> > Such people are prone to see the PMC being pernicious as "meddling" and
> > "getting in the way"... and may even see my -1 vote as "unfortunate". I
> was
> > just framing my actions so that they are not confused.
>
> Well using "unfortunate" confused me - I thought you were saying that
> the role was not necessary or was due to some arbitrary rules.
>
> > Aside: If a committer does not like that we (the PMC) have to be this
> way,
> > and does not think they could uphold the responsibility to conduct their
> > reviews diligently taking care of the legal responsibilities that the
> > ASF tasks the PMC with then I would recommend that such a committer
> reject
> > a nomination to the PMC if we were to offer it... in some ways being on
> the
> > PMC is a thankless job... but it is one that I agreed to do... so until I
> > get fed up, so be it!
>
> Apache committers also have responsibilities, even though their votes
> do not formally count.
> In particular, committers are responsible for ensuring that code they
> check in to the CMS has the appropriate license.
>
> > -Stephen
> >
> >
> >> > - Stephen
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious
> text:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> =========================================================================
> >> >> > == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
> >> >> ==
> >> >> > == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
> >> >> ==
> >> >> > == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
> >> >> ==
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> =========================================================================
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be
> as
> >> >> > short as possible (but no shorter).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ====================
> >> >> > Apache Maven
> >> >> > Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This product includes software developed at
> >> >> > The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> >> >> > ==================
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed
> by"
> >> >> > - the distinction is important.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party
> software,
> >> >> > but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
> >> >> > The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
> >> >>
> >> >> From what I can tell we have been failing this since August 2010.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=blob;f=apache-maven/NOTICE.txt;hb=bfaf11090a212f8445f2ad929af8acce5a984bf0
> >> >>
> >> >> I can't find change history for
> >> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html so I don't know if we
> >> >> have been failing all the time, or since it was changed.
> >> >>
> >> >> And I can see you've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5487
> >> >> to track this.
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 July 2013 12:52, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 July 2013 12:32, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4 July 2013 11:05, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets and
>> > license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
>> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
>> > currently have an exception for test data sets.
>>
>> I undertstand that some test data files cannot have AL headers.
>>
>> However, surely any exception which might be agreed does not cover
>> unit test cases in Java files?
>> Nor the poms needed to run the tests.
>> There are several such in the source archive.
>>
>
> Are these in src/test/resources/ or in src/it/ because if so they are test
> data not software we distribute and build.
One example is:
maven-core/src/test/projects/lifecycle-executor/project-with-additional-lifecycle-elements/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/lifecycle/test/App.java
They are all distributed, because they are in the source release.
> Without inspecting each and every test data file and the corresponding test
> case (which invokes the test case using e.g. maven verifier or maven
> invoker... i.e. files in src/test/java which clearly must have a license
> header) we cannot be certain that adding a license header will not affect
> the results of the test... yes the vast majority of them can probably have
> the header added successfully... but I do not see anyone standing up
> willing to undertake that mammoth analysis task.
Why not just add the header and see what breaks?
> I would much rather get an exception that lets us release and then turn the
> screw and tighten which files need the exception to remain and which can
> have the headers added as we progress through multiple releases. That is
> the approach which will help the community as us taking what could be
> *years* to get the test cases with headers in *every* place where they can
> safely be put quite frankly would kill this project.
>
>
>> > Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
>> >
>> > -1
>> >
>> > If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data sets,
>> > then I would be happy to switch to +1.
>> >
>> > If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the NOTICE
>> > files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as nobody
>> on
>> > the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation of
>> the
>> > ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
>> >
>> > If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the test
>> > data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to do
>> as
>> > adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the risk
>> of
>> > invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
>> > cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to change
>> > such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file to
>> > cover the test data.
>> >
>> > I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance role
>> > that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
>>
>> I would not classify it as unfortunate.
>>
>> ASF committership and PMC membership are both privileges, not rights,
>> and come with certain responsibilities.
>> In particular to ensure that releases are available under the Apache
>> License, and don't contain any suprises for the end users.
>>
>
> I started the drive to get the licensing tidied up before you started
> putting your attentions here:
> https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/bfcf03d42c37bce5bf16a1ab689073109d191bf7
>
> I understand why the PMC has to do this...
>
> Quite frankly it was only when I groked what it means to be a member of the
> ASF that I got the fuller understanding of the role of the PMC that I have
> now.
>
> I think there are a lot of people in the community that do not understand
> why the ASF does things the way it does.
In that case they need to be helped to understand.
IMO we could do a lot better at documenting the rationale for the
procedures that have been developed.
> Such people are prone to see the PMC being pernicious as "meddling" and
> "getting in the way"... and may even see my -1 vote as "unfortunate". I was
> just framing my actions so that they are not confused.
Well using "unfortunate" confused me - I thought you were saying that
the role was not necessary or was due to some arbitrary rules.
> Aside: If a committer does not like that we (the PMC) have to be this way,
> and does not think they could uphold the responsibility to conduct their
> reviews diligently taking care of the legal responsibilities that the
> ASF tasks the PMC with then I would recommend that such a committer reject
> a nomination to the PMC if we were to offer it... in some ways being on the
> PMC is a thankless job... but it is one that I agreed to do... so until I
> get fed up, so be it!
Apache committers also have responsibilities, even though their votes
do not formally count.
In particular, committers are responsible for ensuring that code they
check in to the CMS has the appropriate license.
> -Stephen
>
>
>> > - Stephen
>> >
>> >
>> > On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious text:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> =========================================================================
>> >> > == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
>> >> ==
>> >> > == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
>> >> ==
>> >> > == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
>> >> ==
>> >> >
>> >>
>> =========================================================================
>> >> >
>> >> > This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be as
>> >> > short as possible (but no shorter).
>> >> >
>> >> > ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
>> >> >
>> >> > ====================
>> >> > Apache Maven
>> >> > Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
>> >> >
>> >> > This product includes software developed at
>> >> > The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>> >> > ==================
>> >> >
>> >> > Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed by"
>> >> > - the distinction is important.
>> >> >
>> >> > Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party software,
>> >> > but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
>> >> > The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
>> >>
>> >> From what I can tell we have been failing this since August 2010.
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=blob;f=apache-maven/NOTICE.txt;hb=bfaf11090a212f8445f2ad929af8acce5a984bf0
>> >>
>> >> I can't find change history for
>> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html so I don't know if we
>> >> have been failing all the time, or since it was changed.
>> >>
>> >> And I can see you've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5487
>> >> to track this.
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
On 4 July 2013 12:32, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 July 2013 11:05, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets and
> > license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
> > currently have an exception for test data sets.
>
> I undertstand that some test data files cannot have AL headers.
>
> However, surely any exception which might be agreed does not cover
> unit test cases in Java files?
> Nor the poms needed to run the tests.
> There are several such in the source archive.
>
Are these in src/test/resources/ or in src/it/ because if so they are test
data not software we distribute and build.
Without inspecting each and every test data file and the corresponding test
case (which invokes the test case using e.g. maven verifier or maven
invoker... i.e. files in src/test/java which clearly must have a license
header) we cannot be certain that adding a license header will not affect
the results of the test... yes the vast majority of them can probably have
the header added successfully... but I do not see anyone standing up
willing to undertake that mammoth analysis task.
I would much rather get an exception that lets us release and then turn the
screw and tighten which files need the exception to remain and which can
have the headers added as we progress through multiple releases. That is
the approach which will help the community as us taking what could be
*years* to get the test cases with headers in *every* place where they can
safely be put quite frankly would kill this project.
> > Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
> >
> > -1
> >
> > If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data sets,
> > then I would be happy to switch to +1.
> >
> > If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the NOTICE
> > files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as nobody
> on
> > the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation of
> the
> > ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
> >
> > If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the test
> > data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to do
> as
> > adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the risk
> of
> > invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
> > cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to change
> > such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file to
> > cover the test data.
> >
> > I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance role
> > that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
>
> I would not classify it as unfortunate.
>
> ASF committership and PMC membership are both privileges, not rights,
> and come with certain responsibilities.
> In particular to ensure that releases are available under the Apache
> License, and don't contain any suprises for the end users.
>
I started the drive to get the licensing tidied up before you started
putting your attentions here:
https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/bfcf03d42c37bce5bf16a1ab689073109d191bf7
I understand why the PMC has to do this...
Quite frankly it was only when I groked what it means to be a member of the
ASF that I got the fuller understanding of the role of the PMC that I have
now.
I think there are a lot of people in the community that do not understand
why the ASF does things the way it does.
Such people are prone to see the PMC being pernicious as "meddling" and
"getting in the way"... and may even see my -1 vote as "unfortunate". I was
just framing my actions so that they are not confused.
Aside: If a committer does not like that we (the PMC) have to be this way,
and does not think they could uphold the responsibility to conduct their
reviews diligently taking care of the legal responsibilities that the
ASF tasks the PMC with then I would recommend that such a committer reject
a nomination to the PMC if we were to offer it... in some ways being on the
PMC is a thankless job... but it is one that I agreed to do... so until I
get fed up, so be it!
-Stephen
> > - Stephen
> >
> >
> > On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious text:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> =========================================================================
> >> > == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
> >> ==
> >> > == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
> >> ==
> >> > == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
> >> ==
> >> >
> >>
> =========================================================================
> >> >
> >> > This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be as
> >> > short as possible (but no shorter).
> >> >
> >> > ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
> >> >
> >> > ====================
> >> > Apache Maven
> >> > Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
> >> >
> >> > This product includes software developed at
> >> > The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> >> > ==================
> >> >
> >> > Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed by"
> >> > - the distinction is important.
> >> >
> >> > Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party software,
> >> > but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
> >> > The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
> >>
> >> From what I can tell we have been failing this since August 2010.
> >>
> >>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=blob;f=apache-maven/NOTICE.txt;hb=bfaf11090a212f8445f2ad929af8acce5a984bf0
> >>
> >> I can't find change history for
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html so I don't know if we
> >> have been failing all the time, or since it was changed.
> >>
> >> And I can see you've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5487
> >> to track this.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 July 2013 11:05, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets and
> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
> currently have an exception for test data sets.
I undertstand that some test data files cannot have AL headers.
However, surely any exception which might be agreed does not cover
unit test cases in Java files?
Nor the poms needed to run the tests.
There are several such in the source archive.
> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
>
> -1
>
> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data sets,
> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
>
> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the NOTICE
> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as nobody on
> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation of the
> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
>
> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the test
> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to do as
> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the risk of
> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to change
> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file to
> cover the test data.
>
> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance role
> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
I would not classify it as unfortunate.
ASF committership and PMC membership are both privileges, not rights,
and come with certain responsibilities.
In particular to ensure that releases are available under the Apache
License, and don't contain any suprises for the end users.
> - Stephen
>
>
> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious text:
>> >
>> >
>> =========================================================================
>> > == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
>> ==
>> > == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
>> ==
>> > == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
>> ==
>> >
>> =========================================================================
>> >
>> > This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be as
>> > short as possible (but no shorter).
>> >
>> > ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
>> >
>> > ====================
>> > Apache Maven
>> > Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
>> >
>> > This product includes software developed at
>> > The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>> > ==================
>> >
>> > Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed by"
>> > - the distinction is important.
>> >
>> > Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party software,
>> > but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
>> > The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
>>
>> From what I can tell we have been failing this since August 2010.
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=blob;f=apache-maven/NOTICE.txt;hb=bfaf11090a212f8445f2ad929af8acce5a984bf0
>>
>> I can't find change history for
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html so I don't know if we
>> have been failing all the time, or since it was changed.
>>
>> And I can see you've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5487
>> to track this.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Robert Scholte <rf...@apache.org>.
Can't reproduce it on my Win7 machine either. I'll close it.
Robert
Op Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:51:09 +0200 schreef Anders Hammar
<an...@hammar.net>:
>> Not yet tested but is there someone who could have a look at this one :
>> https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5492
>> This regression seems strange
>>
>
> I can't reproduce that issue. Introducing an error in the global
> settings.xml makes Maven 3.1.0 fail on my MBP.
>
> /Anders
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4 July 2013 20:35, Stephen Connolly
>> <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > I am withdrawing my -1 on the basis of the feedback I have received
>> from
>> > > legal-discuss.
>> > >
>> > > My vote is now +0 as I have not tested the distribution and I am
>> waiting
>> > > for somebody else on the PMC to do the running and make a call on
>> whether
>> > > we need to fix the NOTICE file for this release.
>> > >
>> > > I intend testing the distribution tomorrow unless this vote gets
>> > cancelled
>> > > ;-)
>> > >
>> > > - Stephen
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Fair enough.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>> > >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote
>> > >> because
>> > >> > of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the
>> test
>> > >> data
>> > >> > issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the
>> bits
>> > I
>> > >> am
>> > >> > focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my
>> > point
>> > >> of
>> > >> > view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from
>> > >> > legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is
>> that
>> > >> with
>> > >> > the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to
>> cancel
>> the
>> > >> vote
>> > >> > now.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt
>> answer
>> > >> (from
>> > >> > a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no
>> vote
>> to
>> > >> push
>> > >> > them with.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again.
>> It
>> > will
>> > >> >> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then
>> we
>> > >> might as
>> > >> >> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking
>> if an
>> > >> >> exception can be made.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required
>> for
>> > >> >> compliance and I'll cut it again.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>> > >> >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data
>> sets
>> > >> and
>> > >> >>> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
>> > >> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we
>> do
>> > not
>> > >> >>> currently have an exception for test data sets.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> -1
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test
>> data
>> > >> sets,
>> > >> >>> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to
>> the
>> > >> NOTICE
>> > >> >>> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin
>> as
>> > >> nobody
>> > >> >> on
>> > >> >>> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in
>> violation
>> > >> of
>> > >> >> the
>> > >> >>> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to
>> all
>> the
>> > >> test
>> > >> >>> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we
>> want
>> to
>> > >> do
>> > >> >> as
>> > >> >>> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs
>> the
>> > >> risk
>> > >> >> of
>> > >> >>> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that
>> > would
>> > >> >>> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF
>> to
>> > >> change
>> > >> >>> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE
>> file
>> > >> to
>> > >> >>> cover the test data.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the
>> governance
>> > >> role
>> > >> >>> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> - Stephen
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >>>>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following
>> spurious
>> > >> text:
>> > >> >>>>>
>> > >> >>>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> =========================================================================
>> > >> >>>>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
>> > >> >>>> ==
>> > >> >>>>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
>> > >> >>>> ==
>> > >> >>>>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
>> > >> >>>> ==
>> > >> >>>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> =========================================================================
>> > >> >>>>We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
>> > >>
>> > >> -- Shakespeare
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sent from my phone
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -----
>> Arnaud Héritier
>> http://aheritier.net
>> Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com
>> Twitter/Skype : aheritier
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net>.
> Not yet tested but is there someone who could have a look at this one :
> https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5492
> This regression seems strange
>
I can't reproduce that issue. Introducing an error in the global
settings.xml makes Maven 3.1.0 fail on my MBP.
/Anders
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On 4 July 2013 20:35, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > I am withdrawing my -1 on the basis of the feedback I have received
> from
> > > legal-discuss.
> > >
> > > My vote is now +0 as I have not tested the distribution and I am
> waiting
> > > for somebody else on the PMC to do the running and make a call on
> whether
> > > we need to fix the NOTICE file for this release.
> > >
> > > I intend testing the distribution tomorrow unless this vote gets
> > cancelled
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > - Stephen
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > >
> > >> Fair enough.
> > >>
> > >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> > >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote
> > >> because
> > >> > of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
> > >> >
> > >> > Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the test
> > >> data
> > >> > issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the
> bits
> > I
> > >> am
> > >> > focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my
> > point
> > >> of
> > >> > view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from
> > >> > legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is that
> > >> with
> > >> > the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to cancel
> the
> > >> vote
> > >> > now.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt answer
> > >> (from
> > >> > a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no vote
> to
> > >> push
> > >> > them with.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It
> > will
> > >> >> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we
> > >> might as
> > >> >> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an
> > >> >> exception can be made.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for
> > >> >> compliance and I'll cut it again.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> > >> >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data
> sets
> > >> and
> > >> >>> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
> > >> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do
> > not
> > >> >>> currently have an exception for test data sets.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> -1
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data
> > >> sets,
> > >> >>> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the
> > >> NOTICE
> > >> >>> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as
> > >> nobody
> > >> >> on
> > >> >>> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in
> violation
> > >> of
> > >> >> the
> > >> >>> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all
> the
> > >> test
> > >> >>> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want
> to
> > >> do
> > >> >> as
> > >> >>> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the
> > >> risk
> > >> >> of
> > >> >>> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that
> > would
> > >> >>> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to
> > >> change
> > >> >>> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE
> file
> > >> to
> > >> >>> cover the test data.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the
> governance
> > >> role
> > >> >>> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> - Stephen
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious
> > >> text:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > =========================================================================
> > >> >>>>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
> > >> >>>> ==
> > >> >>>>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
> > >> >>>> ==
> > >> >>>>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
> > >> >>>> ==
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > =========================================================================
> > >> >>>>We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
> > >>
> > >> -- Shakespeare
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from my phone
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -----
> Arnaud Héritier
> http://aheritier.net
> Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com
> Twitter/Skype : aheritier
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Arnaud Héritier <ah...@gmail.com>.
Not yet tested but is there someone who could have a look at this one :
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5492
This regression seems strange
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On 4 July 2013 20:35, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I am withdrawing my -1 on the basis of the feedback I have received from
> > legal-discuss.
> >
> > My vote is now +0 as I have not tested the distribution and I am waiting
> > for somebody else on the PMC to do the running and make a call on whether
> > we need to fix the NOTICE file for this release.
> >
> > I intend testing the distribution tomorrow unless this vote gets
> cancelled
> > ;-)
> >
> > - Stephen
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> >> Fair enough.
> >>
> >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote
> >> because
> >> > of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
> >> >
> >> > Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the test
> >> data
> >> > issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the bits
> I
> >> am
> >> > focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my
> point
> >> of
> >> > view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from
> >> > legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is that
> >> with
> >> > the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to cancel the
> >> vote
> >> > now.
> >> >
> >> > I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt answer
> >> (from
> >> > a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no vote to
> >> push
> >> > them with.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It
> will
> >> >> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we
> >> might as
> >> >> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an
> >> >> exception can be made.
> >> >>
> >> >> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for
> >> >> compliance and I'll cut it again.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> >> >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets
> >> and
> >> >>> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
> >> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do
> not
> >> >>> currently have an exception for test data sets.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -1
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data
> >> sets,
> >> >>> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the
> >> NOTICE
> >> >>> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as
> >> nobody
> >> >> on
> >> >>> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation
> >> of
> >> >> the
> >> >>> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the
> >> test
> >> >>> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to
> >> do
> >> >> as
> >> >>> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the
> >> risk
> >> >> of
> >> >>> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that
> would
> >> >>> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to
> >> change
> >> >>> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file
> >> to
> >> >>> cover the test data.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance
> >> role
> >> >>> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Stephen
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious
> >> text:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>
> >>
> =========================================================================
> >> >>>>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
> >> >>>> ==
> >> >>>>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
> >> >>>> ==
> >> >>>>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
> >> >>>> ==
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>
> >>
> =========================================================================
> >> >>>>We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
> >>
> >> -- Shakespeare
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my phone
> >
>
--
-----
Arnaud Héritier
http://aheritier.net
Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com
Twitter/Skype : aheritier
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 4 July 2013 20:35, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I am withdrawing my -1 on the basis of the feedback I have received from
> legal-discuss.
>
> My vote is now +0 as I have not tested the distribution and I am waiting
> for somebody else on the PMC to do the running and make a call on whether
> we need to fix the NOTICE file for this release.
>
> I intend testing the distribution tomorrow unless this vote gets cancelled
> ;-)
>
> - Stephen
>
>
> On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Fair enough.
>>
>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote
>> because
>> > of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
>> >
>> > Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the test
>> data
>> > issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the bits I
>> am
>> > focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my point
>> of
>> > view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from
>> > legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is that
>> with
>> > the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to cancel the
>> vote
>> > now.
>> >
>> > I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt answer
>> (from
>> > a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no vote to
>> push
>> > them with.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It will
>> >> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we
>> might as
>> >> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an
>> >> exception can be made.
>> >>
>> >> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for
>> >> compliance and I'll cut it again.
>> >>
>> >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>> >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets
>> and
>> >>> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
>> >>> currently have an exception for test data sets.
>> >>>
>> >>> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
>> >>>
>> >>> -1
>> >>>
>> >>> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data
>> sets,
>> >>> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
>> >>>
>> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the
>> NOTICE
>> >>> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as
>> nobody
>> >> on
>> >>> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation
>> of
>> >> the
>> >>> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
>> >>>
>> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the
>> test
>> >>> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to
>> do
>> >> as
>> >>> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the
>> risk
>> >> of
>> >>> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
>> >>> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to
>> change
>> >>> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file
>> to
>> >>> cover the test data.
>> >>>
>> >>> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance
>> role
>> >>> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
>> >>>
>> >>> - Stephen
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious
>> text:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> =========================================================================
>> >>>>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
>> >>>> ==
>> >>>>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
>> >>>> ==
>> >>>>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
>> >>>> ==
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> =========================================================================
>> >>>>We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
>>
>> -- Shakespeare
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my phone
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
On Thursday, 4 July 2013, sebb wrote:
> On 4 July 2013 20:35, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > I am withdrawing my -1 on the basis of the feedback I have received from
> > legal-discuss.
>
> The question to legal-discuss was specifically about test data, not test
> code.
That "code" is actually test data.
The test code is in src/test/java
So my view is if it isn't compiled by the build process it is test data...
The "code" you refer to is compiled by the code under test as part of
verifying that it can build code correctly... As such it is clearly data.
If you want to bring it up with legal-discuss, go for it... But I am not
going to rush to modify test data without being sure that the modifications
do not invalidate the tests...
Now I view it rather unlikely that the test data which consists of .java
files will be corrupted by adding a license header, but I cannot say that
it will not have the effect, so this is case by case review and baby steps.
>
> Does the reply to your query about test data also apply to test code?
> As I read it, that question was not asked.
>
> There are several test code files (and related poms) that don't have AL
> headers.
>
> I think it would be worth clarifying the issue with regard to test
> code before assuming that the answers also apply to test code.
I don't believe you will get a different answer... These files have
historically been distributed, the PMC is putting in place a process to get
the number as close to zero as can be achieved without compromising on the
quality of our extensive test suite... I do not think there is an issue
here... I leave it up to others on the PMC to form their judgement on the
situation... If others disagree or wish to seek further clarification, then
they should do that. The Maven PMC is responsible for Maven releases and as
a member if the PMC I am happy with the view of this as test data
>
> > My vote is now +0 as I have not tested the distribution and I am waiting
> > for somebody else on the PMC to do the running and make a call on whether
> > we need to fix the NOTICE file for this release.
>
> There are several problems with the NOTICE and/or LICENSE files.
> One is that the NOTICE file mentions 3rd party software, but there are
> no corresponding entries in the LICENSE file. If the 3rd party
> software is not part of the source release, then the references need
> to be removed.
>
> If the 3rd party software is included (presumably as source) then the
> relevant licenses need to be included in the LICENSE file, or included
> as separate files linked from the LICENSE file.
>
> Has anyone established whether there is any 3rd party software
> included in the source release?
Interesting questions... I wonder what others think
>
> > I intend testing the distribution tomorrow unless this vote gets
> cancelled
> > ;-)
> >
> > - Stephen
> >
> > On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> >> Fair enough.
> >>
> >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote
> because
> >> > of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
> >> >
> >> > Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the test
> data
> >> > issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the bits
> I
> >> am
> >> > focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my
> point
> >> of
> >> > view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from
> >> > legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is that
> with
> >> > the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to cancel the
> >> vote
> >> > now.
> >> >
> >> > I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt answer
> >> (from
> >> > a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no vote to
> >> push
> >> > them with.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It
> will
> >> >> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we
> >> might as
> >> >> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an
> >> >> exception can be made.
> >> >>
> >> >> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for
> >> >> compliance and I'll cut it again.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> >> >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets
> >> and
> >> >>> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
> >> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do
> not
> >> >>> currently have an exception for test data sets.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -1
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data
> >> sets,
> >> >>> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the
> >> NOTICE
> >> >>> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as
> >> nobody
> >> >> on
> >> >>> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in
> violation of
> >> >> the
> >> >>> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the
> >> test
> >> >>> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want
> to do
> >> >> as
> >> >>> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the
> risk
> >> >> of
> >> >>> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that
> would
> >> >>> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to
> >> change
> >> >>> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE
> file to
> >> >>> cover the test data.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance
> >> role
> >> >>> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Stephen
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
>
>
--
Sent from my phone
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 July 2013 23:47, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>
> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:06 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4 July 2013 20:35, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am withdrawing my -1 on the basis of the feedback I have received from
>>> legal-discuss.
>>
>> The question to legal-discuss was specifically about test data, not test code.
>>
>> Does the reply to your query about test data also apply to test code?
>> As I read it, that question was not asked.
>>
>> There are several test code files (and related poms) that don't have AL headers.
>>
>> I think it would be worth clarifying the issue with regard to test
>> code before assuming that the answers also apply to test code.
>>
>>> My vote is now +0 as I have not tested the distribution and I am waiting
>>> for somebody else on the PMC to do the running and make a call on whether
>>> we need to fix the NOTICE file for this release.
>>
>> There are several problems with the NOTICE and/or LICENSE files.
>> One is that the NOTICE file mentions 3rd party software, but there are
>> no corresponding entries in the LICENSE file. If the 3rd party
>> software is not part of the source release, then the references need
>> to be removed.
>>
>> If the 3rd party software is included (presumably as source) then the
>> relevant licenses need to be included in the LICENSE file, or included
>> as separate files linked from the LICENSE file.
>>
>
> All the licenses we use require a copy of the license, so those are missing and ideally there would be one for each coordinate of a dependency that we use. That you use a dependency in binary form (vs source) only does not preclude adherence to the requirements of the license.
Agreed.
> The software cannot be used in source form and requires the dependencies to do anything to run so they are not excluded in the source distribution.
The NOTICE file needs to be about the bits that are actually included
in the archive.
It's vital that the NOTICE file is as short as possible, but no shorter.
> The license files technically should be included so that can be improved. A licenses directory with the licenses contained within is what I've typically seen and if we automate this would be easier.
That's fine, but the LICENSE file in the binary release should contain
a link to them.
I assume the same LICENSE file could be used for both source and
binary archives, so long as the text makes clear that the linked
licenses are for the additional artifacts included in the binary
archive. There is no requirement for the LICENSE file to be as short
as possible.
>> Has anyone established whether there is any 3rd party software
>> included in the source release?
>>
>
> To my knowledge all dependencies are in binary form, and there are no excerpts or sections of third party code included in source form in our codebase and therefore none in the source release.
In which case the irrelevant paragraphs need to be removed from the
NOTICE file in the source release.
It's vital that the NOTICE file is as short as possible, but no shorter.
>>> I intend testing the distribution tomorrow unless this vote gets cancelled
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> - Stephen
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fair enough.
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>>>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote because
>>>>> of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the test data
>>>>> issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the bits I
>>>> am
>>>>> focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my point
>>>> of
>>>>> view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from
>>>>> legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is that with
>>>>> the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to cancel the
>>>> vote
>>>>> now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt answer
>>>> (from
>>>>> a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no vote to
>>>> push
>>>>> them with.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It will
>>>>>> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we
>>>> might as
>>>>>> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an
>>>>>> exception can be made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for
>>>>>> compliance and I'll cut it again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>>>>>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets
>>>> and
>>>>>>> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
>>>>>>> currently have an exception for test data sets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data
>>>> sets,
>>>>>>> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the
>>>> NOTICE
>>>>>>> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as
>>>> nobody
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the
>>>> test
>>>>>>> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to do
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the risk
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
>>>>>>> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to
>>>> change
>>>>>>> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file to
>>>>>>> cover the test data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance
>>>> role
>>>>>>> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Stephen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious
>>>> text:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> =========================================================================
>>>>>>>>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
>>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
>>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
>>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> =========================================================================
>>>>>>>> We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
>>>>
>>>> -- Shakespeare
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from my phone
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Our achievements speak for themselves. What we have to keep track
> of are our failures, discouragements and doubts. We tend to forget
> the past difficulties, the many false starts, and the painful
> groping. We see our past achievements as the end result of a
> clean forward thrust, and our present difficulties as
> signs of decline and decay.
>
> -- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:06 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 July 2013 20:35, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am withdrawing my -1 on the basis of the feedback I have received from
>> legal-discuss.
>
> The question to legal-discuss was specifically about test data, not test code.
>
> Does the reply to your query about test data also apply to test code?
> As I read it, that question was not asked.
>
> There are several test code files (and related poms) that don't have AL headers.
>
> I think it would be worth clarifying the issue with regard to test
> code before assuming that the answers also apply to test code.
>
>> My vote is now +0 as I have not tested the distribution and I am waiting
>> for somebody else on the PMC to do the running and make a call on whether
>> we need to fix the NOTICE file for this release.
>
> There are several problems with the NOTICE and/or LICENSE files.
> One is that the NOTICE file mentions 3rd party software, but there are
> no corresponding entries in the LICENSE file. If the 3rd party
> software is not part of the source release, then the references need
> to be removed.
>
> If the 3rd party software is included (presumably as source) then the
> relevant licenses need to be included in the LICENSE file, or included
> as separate files linked from the LICENSE file.
>
All the licenses we use require a copy of the license, so those are missing and ideally there would be one for each coordinate of a dependency that we use. That you use a dependency in binary form (vs source) only does not preclude adherence to the requirements of the license. The software cannot be used in source form and requires the dependencies to do anything to run so they are not excluded in the source distribution. The license files technically should be included so that can be improved. A licenses directory with the licenses contained within is what I've typically seen and if we automate this would be easier.
> Has anyone established whether there is any 3rd party software
> included in the source release?
>
To my knowledge all dependencies are in binary form, and there are no excerpts or sections of third party code included in source form in our codebase and therefore none in the source release.
>> I intend testing the distribution tomorrow unless this vote gets cancelled
>> ;-)
>>
>> - Stephen
>>
>> On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> Fair enough.
>>>
>>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote because
>>>> of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
>>>>
>>>> Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the test data
>>>> issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the bits I
>>> am
>>>> focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my point
>>> of
>>>> view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from
>>>> legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is that with
>>>> the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to cancel the
>>> vote
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt answer
>>> (from
>>>> a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no vote to
>>> push
>>>> them with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It will
>>>>> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we
>>> might as
>>>>> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an
>>>>> exception can be made.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for
>>>>> compliance and I'll cut it again.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>>>>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets
>>> and
>>>>>> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
>>>>>> currently have an exception for test data sets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data
>>> sets,
>>>>>> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the
>>> NOTICE
>>>>>> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as
>>> nobody
>>>>> on
>>>>>> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the
>>> test
>>>>>> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to do
>>>>> as
>>>>>> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the risk
>>>>> of
>>>>>> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
>>>>>> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to
>>> change
>>>>>> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file to
>>>>>> cover the test data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance
>>> role
>>>>>> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Stephen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious
>>> text:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> =========================================================================
>>>>>>>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> =========================================================================
>>>>>>> We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
>>>
>>> -- Shakespeare
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my phone
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
Our achievements speak for themselves. What we have to keep track
of are our failures, discouragements and doubts. We tend to forget
the past difficulties, the many false starts, and the painful
groping. We see our past achievements as the end result of a
clean forward thrust, and our present difficulties as
signs of decline and decay.
-- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 July 2013 20:35, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am withdrawing my -1 on the basis of the feedback I have received from
> legal-discuss.
The question to legal-discuss was specifically about test data, not test code.
Does the reply to your query about test data also apply to test code?
As I read it, that question was not asked.
There are several test code files (and related poms) that don't have AL headers.
I think it would be worth clarifying the issue with regard to test
code before assuming that the answers also apply to test code.
> My vote is now +0 as I have not tested the distribution and I am waiting
> for somebody else on the PMC to do the running and make a call on whether
> we need to fix the NOTICE file for this release.
There are several problems with the NOTICE and/or LICENSE files.
One is that the NOTICE file mentions 3rd party software, but there are
no corresponding entries in the LICENSE file. If the 3rd party
software is not part of the source release, then the references need
to be removed.
If the 3rd party software is included (presumably as source) then the
relevant licenses need to be included in the LICENSE file, or included
as separate files linked from the LICENSE file.
Has anyone established whether there is any 3rd party software
included in the source release?
> I intend testing the distribution tomorrow unless this vote gets cancelled
> ;-)
>
> - Stephen
>
> On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Fair enough.
>>
>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote because
>> > of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
>> >
>> > Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the test data
>> > issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the bits I
>> am
>> > focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my point
>> of
>> > view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from
>> > legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is that with
>> > the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to cancel the
>> vote
>> > now.
>> >
>> > I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt answer
>> (from
>> > a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no vote to
>> push
>> > them with.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It will
>> >> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we
>> might as
>> >> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an
>> >> exception can be made.
>> >>
>> >> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for
>> >> compliance and I'll cut it again.
>> >>
>> >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>> >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets
>> and
>> >>> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
>> >>> currently have an exception for test data sets.
>> >>>
>> >>> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
>> >>>
>> >>> -1
>> >>>
>> >>> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data
>> sets,
>> >>> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
>> >>>
>> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the
>> NOTICE
>> >>> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as
>> nobody
>> >> on
>> >>> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation of
>> >> the
>> >>> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
>> >>>
>> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the
>> test
>> >>> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to do
>> >> as
>> >>> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the risk
>> >> of
>> >>> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
>> >>> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to
>> change
>> >>> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file to
>> >>> cover the test data.
>> >>>
>> >>> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance
>> role
>> >>> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
>> >>>
>> >>> - Stephen
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious
>> text:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> =========================================================================
>> >>>>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
>> >>>> ==
>> >>>>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
>> >>>> ==
>> >>>>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
>> >>>> ==
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> =========================================================================
>> >>>>We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
>>
>> -- Shakespeare
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my phone
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
I am withdrawing my -1 on the basis of the feedback I have received from
legal-discuss.
My vote is now +0 as I have not tested the distribution and I am waiting
for somebody else on the PMC to do the running and make a call on whether
we need to fix the NOTICE file for this release.
I intend testing the distribution tomorrow unless this vote gets cancelled
;-)
- Stephen
On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Fair enough.
>
> On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote because
> > of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
> >
> > Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the test data
> > issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the bits I
> am
> > focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my point
> of
> > view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from
> > legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is that with
> > the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to cancel the
> vote
> > now.
> >
> > I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt answer
> (from
> > a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no vote to
> push
> > them with.
> >
> >
> > On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> >
> >> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It will
> >> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we
> might as
> >> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an
> >> exception can be made.
> >>
> >> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for
> >> compliance and I'll cut it again.
> >>
> >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets
> and
> >>> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
> >>> currently have an exception for test data sets.
> >>>
> >>> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
> >>>
> >>> -1
> >>>
> >>> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data
> sets,
> >>> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
> >>>
> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the
> NOTICE
> >>> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as
> nobody
> >> on
> >>> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation of
> >> the
> >>> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
> >>>
> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the
> test
> >>> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to do
> >> as
> >>> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the risk
> >> of
> >>> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
> >>> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to
> change
> >>> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file to
> >>> cover the test data.
> >>>
> >>> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance
> role
> >>> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
> >>>
> >>> - Stephen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious
> text:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> =========================================================================
> >>>>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
> >>>> ==
> >>>>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
> >>>> ==
> >>>>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
> >>>> ==
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> =========================================================================
> >>>>We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
>
> -- Shakespeare
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Sent from my phone
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
Fair enough.
On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote because
> of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
>
> Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the test data
> issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the bits I am
> focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my point of
> view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from
> legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is that with
> the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to cancel the vote
> now.
>
> I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt answer (from
> a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no vote to push
> them with.
>
>
> On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>
>> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It will
>> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we might as
>> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an
>> exception can be made.
>>
>> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for
>> compliance and I'll cut it again.
>>
>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets and
>>> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
>>> currently have an exception for test data sets.
>>>
>>> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data sets,
>>> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
>>>
>>> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the NOTICE
>>> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as nobody
>> on
>>> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation of
>> the
>>> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
>>>
>>> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the test
>>> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to do
>> as
>>> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the risk
>> of
>>> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
>>> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to change
>>> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file to
>>> cover the test data.
>>>
>>> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance role
>>> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
>>>
>>> - Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious text:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> =========================================================================
>>>>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
>>>> ==
>>>>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
>>>> ==
>>>>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
>>>> ==
>>>>>
>>>>
>> =========================================================================
>>>>>
>>>>> This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be as
>>>>> short as possible (but no shorter).
>>>>>
>>>>> ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
>>>>>
>>>>> ====================
>>>>> Apache Maven
>>>>> Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
>>>>>
>>>>> This product includes software developed at
>>>>> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>>>> ==================
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed by"
>>>>> - the distinction is important.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party software,
>>>>> but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
>>>>> The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
>>>>
>>>> From what I can tell we have been failing this since August 2010.
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=blob;f=apache-maven/NOTICE.txt;hb=bfaf11090a212f8445f2ad929af8acce5a984bf0
>>>>
>>>> I can't find change history for
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html so I don't know if we
>>>> have been failing all the time, or since it was changed.
>>>>
>>>> And I can see you've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5487
>>>> to track this.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder, Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
>> moral philosophy; that is,
>> the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
>>
>> -- John Kenneth Galbraith
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
We know what we are, but know not what we may be.
-- Shakespeare
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 4 July 2013 14:18, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 July 2013 22:29, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote because
>> of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
>
> Sebb noticed it.
>
> I just dig the version control sleuthing that showed we have been
> failing this for a long time.
>
> I think having a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file is important.
+1
> As for the header files on test files (at least one rat has been
> configured to ignore) ... maybe not so much.
> I'm still relearning my PMC responsibilities to.
> I think adding something to the NOTICE file for these files is good enough.
The NOTICE file is for *required* notices only, so please ensure it is
necessary to do so.
AIUI this is because the NOTICE file has to be passed on by downstream
consumers.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com>.
On 4 July 2013 22:29, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote because
> of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
Sebb noticed it.
I just dig the version control sleuthing that showed we have been
failing this for a long time.
I think having a correct LICENSE and NOTICE file is important.
As for the header files on test files (at least one rat has been
configured to ignore) ... maybe not so much.
I'm still relearning my PMC responsibilities to.
I think adding something to the NOTICE file for these files is good enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote because
of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file.
Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the test data
issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the bits I am
focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my point of
view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from
legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is that with
the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to cancel the vote
now.
I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt answer (from
a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no vote to push
them with.
On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It will
> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we might as
> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an
> exception can be made.
>
> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for
> compliance and I'll cut it again.
>
> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets and
> > license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
> > currently have an exception for test data sets.
> >
> > Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
> >
> > -1
> >
> > If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data sets,
> > then I would be happy to switch to +1.
> >
> > If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the NOTICE
> > files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as nobody
> on
> > the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation of
> the
> > ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
> >
> > If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the test
> > data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to do
> as
> > adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the risk
> of
> > invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
> > cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to change
> > such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file to
> > cover the test data.
> >
> > I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance role
> > that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
> >
> > - Stephen
> >
> >
> > On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious text:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> =========================================================================
> >>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
> >> ==
> >>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
> >> ==
> >>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
> >> ==
> >>>
> >>
> =========================================================================
> >>>
> >>> This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be as
> >>> short as possible (but no shorter).
> >>>
> >>> ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
> >>>
> >>> ====================
> >>> Apache Maven
> >>> Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
> >>>
> >>> This product includes software developed at
> >>> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> >>> ==================
> >>>
> >>> Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed by"
> >>> - the distinction is important.
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party software,
> >>> but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
> >>> The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
> >>
> >> From what I can tell we have been failing this since August 2010.
> >>
> >>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=blob;f=apache-maven/NOTICE.txt;hb=bfaf11090a212f8445f2ad929af8acce5a984bf0
> >>
> >> I can't find change history for
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html so I don't know if we
> >> have been failing all the time, or since it was changed.
> >>
> >> And I can see you've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5487
> >> to track this.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
> moral philosophy; that is,
> the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
>
> -- John Kenneth Galbraith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It will only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we might as well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an exception can be made.
I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for compliance and I'll cut it again.
On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets and
> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
> currently have an exception for test data sets.
>
> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
>
> -1
>
> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data sets,
> then I would be happy to switch to +1.
>
> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the NOTICE
> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as nobody on
> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation of the
> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
>
> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the test
> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to do as
> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the risk of
> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to change
> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file to
> cover the test data.
>
> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance role
> that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
>
> - Stephen
>
>
> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious text:
>>>
>>>
>> =========================================================================
>>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
>> ==
>>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
>> ==
>>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
>> ==
>>>
>> =========================================================================
>>>
>>> This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be as
>>> short as possible (but no shorter).
>>>
>>> ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
>>>
>>> ====================
>>> Apache Maven
>>> Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
>>>
>>> This product includes software developed at
>>> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>> ==================
>>>
>>> Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed by"
>>> - the distinction is important.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party software,
>>> but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
>>> The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
>>
>> From what I can tell we have been failing this since August 2010.
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=blob;f=apache-maven/NOTICE.txt;hb=bfaf11090a212f8445f2ad929af8acce5a984bf0
>>
>> I can't find change history for
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html so I don't know if we
>> have been failing all the time, or since it was changed.
>>
>> And I can see you've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5487
>> to track this.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is,
the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets and
license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do not
currently have an exception for test data sets.
Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be
-1
If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data sets,
then I would be happy to switch to +1.
If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the NOTICE
files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as nobody on
the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation of the
ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role.
If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the test
data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to do as
adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the risk of
invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that would
cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to change
such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file to
cover the test data.
I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance role
that the PMC is tasked with... :-(
- Stephen
On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious text:
> >
> >
> =========================================================================
> > == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of
> ==
> > == the Apache License, Version 2.0,
> ==
> > == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution.
> ==
> >
> =========================================================================
> >
> > This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be as
> > short as possible (but no shorter).
> >
> > ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
> >
> > ====================
> > Apache Maven
> > Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
> >
> > This product includes software developed at
> > The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> > ==================
> >
> > Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed by"
> > - the distinction is important.
> >
> > Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party software,
> > but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
> > The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
>
> From what I can tell we have been failing this since August 2010.
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=blob;f=apache-maven/NOTICE.txt;hb=bfaf11090a212f8445f2ad929af8acce5a984bf0
>
> I can't find change history for
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html so I don't know if we
> have been failing all the time, or since it was changed.
>
> And I can see you've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5487
> to track this.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com>.
On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious text:
>
> =========================================================================
> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of ==
> == the Apache License, Version 2.0, ==
> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution. ==
> =========================================================================
>
> This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be as
> short as possible (but no shorter).
>
> ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
>
> ====================
> Apache Maven
> Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This product includes software developed at
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> ==================
>
> Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed by"
> - the distinction is important.
>
> Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party software,
> but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
> The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
>From what I can tell we have been failing this since August 2010.
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=blob;f=apache-maven/NOTICE.txt;hb=bfaf11090a212f8445f2ad929af8acce5a984bf0
I can't find change history for
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html so I don't know if we
have been failing all the time, or since it was changed.
And I can see you've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5487
to track this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious text:
=========================================================================
== NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of ==
== the Apache License, Version 2.0, ==
== in this case for the Apache Maven distribution. ==
=========================================================================
This must not be present in NOTICE files, which are required to be as
short as possible (but no shorter).
ASF NOTICE files must start as per the following example:
====================
Apache Maven
Copyright 2001-2013 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
==================
Note also that the phrase should be "developed at" not "developed by"
- the distinction is important.
Furthermore, the NOTICE file refers to additonal 3rd party software,
but there don't appear to be any LICENSE files for the software.
The licenses should either be in LICENSE.txt or linked therefrom.
-1 (non-binding)
On 30 June 2013 20:43, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 June 2013 20:00, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>>
>> Release notes:
>> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>>
>> Staged distribution:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>>
>> Staged Site:
>> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>
> Where is the link to the KEYS file (for checking sigs)?
>
> Also link to unique file source set in SCM? (for checking source file
> provenance)
>
> -1 (non-binding) without these.
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder, Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
>>
>> -- John von Neumann
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 30 June 2013 20:00, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>
> Release notes:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>
> Staged distribution:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>
> Staged Site:
> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
Where is the link to the KEYS file (for checking sigs)?
Also link to unique file source set in SCM? (for checking source file
provenance)
-1 (non-binding) without these.
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
>
> -- John von Neumann
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Mark Derricutt <ma...@talios.com>.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Staged distribution:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
+1 non-binding on the binary/execution, seems to work fine on a mixture
of my projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
Jason,
On Jul 13, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> I will try and automate for everyone to have a correct set of attributions.
>
> If you want to manually update the correct files that's fine too.
I think this is now done on master, but requires a release of the remote-resources. Just haven't had time to do it.
Dan
>
> On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:24 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 13 July 2013 15:11, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>>> Sorry about that. I did register the issue
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>> and I'll make something to generate the correct attributions for the next release.
>>
>> There should be need to auto-generate anything for the source release;
>> just ensure the correct N&L files are present in the top-level of SCM.
>> This is required anyway as the SCM is effectively another published
>> source. Once established, the files will need to change rarely if
>> ever.
>>
>> Similarly for the binary release, the NOTICE file may well need to be
>> different, but won't change often.
>> It's not a trivial matter for a program determine what goes in the
>> NOTICE file from machine-readable data.
>>
>>> Hopefully the next one will not take 7 months. I sent the first email out for the first 3.1.0 on December 2nd, 2012 :-)
>>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2013, at 10:00 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13 July 2013 14:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>>>>> The vote has passed with the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 Binding: Arnaud, Stephen, Olivier, Hervé
>>>>> +1 Non-binding: Stevo, Anders, Tony, Tamas, Baptiste, Mark, Mirko
>>>>
>>>> I voted -1 (non-binding) because of the invalid NOTICE file (amongst
>>>> other reasons).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll promote the release in Nexus and update the docs and announce Monday when it's all done.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 30, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Release notes:
>>>>>> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Staging repository:
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Staged distribution:
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Staged Site:
>>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- John von Neumann
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples.
>>>>> Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without
>>>>> actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one
>>>>> is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by
>>>>> looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples
>>>>> you look at, the more general your framework will be.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he
>>> is responsible for the quality of the whole
>>>
>>> -- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is,
> the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
>
> -- John Kenneth Galbraith
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
I will try and automate for everyone to have a correct set of attributions.
If you want to manually update the correct files that's fine too.
On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:24 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 July 2013 15:11, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>> Sorry about that. I did register the issue
>
> OK.
>
>> and I'll make something to generate the correct attributions for the next release.
>
> There should be need to auto-generate anything for the source release;
> just ensure the correct N&L files are present in the top-level of SCM.
> This is required anyway as the SCM is effectively another published
> source. Once established, the files will need to change rarely if
> ever.
>
> Similarly for the binary release, the NOTICE file may well need to be
> different, but won't change often.
> It's not a trivial matter for a program determine what goes in the
> NOTICE file from machine-readable data.
>
>> Hopefully the next one will not take 7 months. I sent the first email out for the first 3.1.0 on December 2nd, 2012 :-)
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2013, at 10:00 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 July 2013 14:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>>>> The vote has passed with the following:
>>>>
>>>> +1 Binding: Arnaud, Stephen, Olivier, Hervé
>>>> +1 Non-binding: Stevo, Anders, Tony, Tamas, Baptiste, Mark, Mirko
>>>
>>> I voted -1 (non-binding) because of the invalid NOTICE file (amongst
>>> other reasons).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll promote the release in Nexus and update the docs and announce Monday when it's all done.
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 30, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>>>>>
>>>>> Release notes:
>>>>> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>>>>>
>>>>> Staging repository:
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>>>>>
>>>>> Staged distribution:
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>>>>>
>>>>> Staged Site:
>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- John von Neumann
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples.
>>>> Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without
>>>> actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one
>>>> is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by
>>>> looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples
>>>> you look at, the more general your framework will be.
>>>>
>>>> -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder, Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he
>> is responsible for the quality of the whole
>>
>> -- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is,
the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 13 July 2013 15:11, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> Sorry about that. I did register the issue
OK.
> and I'll make something to generate the correct attributions for the next release.
There should be need to auto-generate anything for the source release;
just ensure the correct N&L files are present in the top-level of SCM.
This is required anyway as the SCM is effectively another published
source. Once established, the files will need to change rarely if
ever.
Similarly for the binary release, the NOTICE file may well need to be
different, but won't change often.
It's not a trivial matter for a program determine what goes in the
NOTICE file from machine-readable data.
> Hopefully the next one will not take 7 months. I sent the first email out for the first 3.1.0 on December 2nd, 2012 :-)
>
> On Jul 13, 2013, at 10:00 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 13 July 2013 14:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>>> The vote has passed with the following:
>>>
>>> +1 Binding: Arnaud, Stephen, Olivier, Hervé
>>> +1 Non-binding: Stevo, Anders, Tony, Tamas, Baptiste, Mark, Mirko
>>
>> I voted -1 (non-binding) because of the invalid NOTICE file (amongst
>> other reasons).
>>
>>>
>>> I'll promote the release in Nexus and update the docs and announce Monday when it's all done.
>>>
>>> On Jun 30, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>>>>
>>>> Release notes:
>>>> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>>>>
>>>> Staging repository:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>>>>
>>>> Staged distribution:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>>>>
>>>> Staged Site:
>>>> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>> -- John von Neumann
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples.
>>> Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without
>>> actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one
>>> is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by
>>> looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples
>>> you look at, the more general your framework will be.
>>>
>>> -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he
> is responsible for the quality of the whole
>
> -- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
Sorry about that. I did register the issue and I'll make something to generate the correct attributions for the next release. Hopefully the next one will not take 7 months. I sent the first email out for the first 3.1.0 on December 2nd, 2012 :-)
On Jul 13, 2013, at 10:00 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 July 2013 14:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>> The vote has passed with the following:
>>
>> +1 Binding: Arnaud, Stephen, Olivier, Hervé
>> +1 Non-binding: Stevo, Anders, Tony, Tamas, Baptiste, Mark, Mirko
>
> I voted -1 (non-binding) because of the invalid NOTICE file (amongst
> other reasons).
>
>>
>> I'll promote the release in Nexus and update the docs and announce Monday when it's all done.
>>
>> On Jun 30, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>>>
>>> Release notes:
>>> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>>>
>>> Staging repository:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>>>
>>> Staged distribution:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>>>
>>> Staged Site:
>>> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder, Apache Maven
>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
>>>
>>> -- John von Neumann
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder, Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples.
>> Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without
>> actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one
>> is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by
>> looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples
>> you look at, the more general your framework will be.
>>
>> -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he
is responsible for the quality of the whole
-- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 13 July 2013 14:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> The vote has passed with the following:
>
> +1 Binding: Arnaud, Stephen, Olivier, Hervé
> +1 Non-binding: Stevo, Anders, Tony, Tamas, Baptiste, Mark, Mirko
I voted -1 (non-binding) because of the invalid NOTICE file (amongst
other reasons).
>
> I'll promote the release in Nexus and update the docs and announce Monday when it's all done.
>
> On Jun 30, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>
>> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>>
>> Release notes:
>> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>>
>> Staged distribution:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>>
>> Staged Site:
>> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder, Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
>>
>> -- John von Neumann
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples.
> Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without
> actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one
> is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by
> looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples
> you look at, the more general your framework will be.
>
> -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
The vote has passed with the following:
+1 Binding: Arnaud, Stephen, Olivier, Hervé
+1 Non-binding: Stevo, Anders, Tony, Tamas, Baptiste, Mark, Mirko
I'll promote the release in Nexus and update the docs and announce Monday when it's all done.
On Jun 30, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>
> Release notes:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>
> Staged distribution:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>
> Staged Site:
> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
>
> -- John von Neumann
>
>
>
>
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples.
Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without
actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one
is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by
looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples
you look at, the more general your framework will be.
-- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Stevo Slavić <ss...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
Apache Mahout builds OK with Apache Maven 3.1.0.
Kind regards,
Stevo Slavić.
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Didn't try any of the new stuff explicitly though.
>
> /Anders
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>
> > Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
> >
> > Release notes:
> >
> >
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
> >
> > Staging repository:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
> >
> > Staged distribution:
> >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
> >
> > Staged Site:
> > http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Jason van Zyl
> > Founder, Apache Maven
> > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're
> > talking about.
> >
> > -- John von Neumann
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net>.
+1 (non-binding)
Didn't try any of the new stuff explicitly though.
/Anders
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>
> Release notes:
>
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>
> Staged distribution:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>
> Staged Site:
> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're
> talking about.
>
> -- John von Neumann
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Manfred Moser <ma...@simpligility.com>.
AWESOME!!! Thanks for getting this out the door.
manfred
> I will send out the vote result and do the release over the weekend.
>
> On Jun 30, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
>
>> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>>
>> Release notes:
>> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>>
>> Staging repository:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>>
>> Staged distribution:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>>
>> Staged Site:
>> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder, Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're
>> talking about.
>>
>> -- John von Neumann
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
> business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
> be omnipotent for a while.
>
> -- Jakob Burckhardt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache 3.1.0
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>.
I will send out the vote result and do the release over the weekend.
On Jun 30, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote:
> Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
>
> Release notes:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967
>
> Staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/
>
> Staged distribution:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-084/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/
>
> Staged Site:
> http://maven.apache.org/ref/3.1.0
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.
>
> -- John von Neumann
>
>
>
>
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------
A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
be omnipotent for a while.
-- Jakob Burckhardt