You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openjpa.apache.org by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> on 2006/11/12 22:46:35 UTC
[VOTE RESULT] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating podling release
-1 from Eddie, so the vote fails (since I believe it constitutes a
veto).
I'll re-start the vote with the fixed release files shortly.
On Nov 12, 2006, at 7:03 AM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
> Marc--
>
> Sounds good -- nice turnaround time. :) I agree that it's fine to
> defer some of these.
>
> In NOTICE.txt, be sure to remove this:
>
> Please read the different LICENSE files present in the licenses
> directory of
> this distribution.
I just removed this as well. I hope it's the last problem with the
release.
> since I don't think that this is relevant to OpenJPA.
>
> Eddie
>
>
>
> On 11/12/06, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Eddie-
>>
>> OK, I've fixed most of these and am re-building the release. Unless
>> anyone comes up with any other objections, I'll start a new vote
>> tomorrow morning.
>>
>> Also, see my comments inline below...
>>
>>
>> On Nov 11, 2006, at 9:11 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>
>> > Great job on this release -- we're really down to nitty-little
>> > detail issues with the distribution. More detailed comments are
>> below
>> > -- the highlights fall into two major buckets:
>> >
>> > #1: information needed in NOTICE.txt. This refers to the ActiveMQ
>> > project; it also needs to refer to the source files for the binary
>> > persistence-api JAR file as per the CDDL 1.0 license. More
>> > information on ASF policy relative to this license is here:
>> >
>> > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>> >
>> > Additionally, NOTICE.txt should contain the copyrights for 3rd
>> party
>> > Serp / persistence-api JARs. For example:
>> >
>> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/NOTICE.txt
>>
>> Fixed. If anything at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/
>> openjpa/trunk/openjpa-project/NOTICE.txt still looks amiss, please
>> let us know.
>>
>>
>> > #2: ASF source headers. There are a bunch of files in the source
>> > distribution that don't have source headers. There's a great tool
>> > that one of the Incubator PMC members wrote that checks for these
>> > headers. It's super easy to checkout, build, and run and can be
>> found
>> > here:
>> >
>> > http://code.google.com/p/arat/
>> >
>> > These are listed below.
>>
>> I've fixed most of these. See below.
>>
>> > -1 until #1 is fixed because we need to be compliant with licenses
>> > of bundled 3rd party JARs. I'd suggest fixing #2 as well but leave
>> > that to the community to decide -- though the Incubator PMC is
>> looking
>> > more closely at license headers these days. :)
>> >
>> > Eddie
>> >
>> > =====
>> > Items checked:
>> > - md5 signatures
>> > - sha1 signatures
>> > - license headers on archived files
>> > - example builds and runs
>> > - documentation looks good
>> > - license compatibility of JAR files
>> >
>> > Issues that should be addressed before release:
>> > - NOTICE.txt references the "ActiveMQ" distribution
>> > - as per CDDL 1.0, NOTICE.txt must refer to the source for the
>> > persistence-api sources. For more information about including CDDL
>> > 1.0 licensed binaries, see:
>> > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>>
>> This has been fixed.
>>
>> > - source archive includes sun/misc/Perf.java
>>
>> It was only there as a compilation stub. However, since it was only
>> required for JDK 1.3 and lower, and since we just voted to drop
>> support for JDK 1.3, I just went ahead and deleted it.
>>
>> > - files missing license files:
>> > <binary>/examples/META-INF/persistence.xml
>> > <source>:
>> > - **/*.properties
>> > - **/pom.xml
>> > - **/*.xml
>> > - **/*.rsrc
>> > - **/JPQL.jjt
>> > - **/*.ProductDerivation
>> > - **/*.ExpressionParser
>> > - **/*.PersistenceProvider
>>
>>
>> > - Java files without LICENSE headers -- there were 17 of these.
>> > Found using:
>> > find . -name "*.java" -exec grep --files-without-match
>> > "LICENSE" {} ;
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>> > - openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating.pom missing license header
>>
>> Fixed, I think (if you are looking at pom files that are re-generated
>> by the maven process, then they don't preserve comments, and thus
>> will lose the license header).
>>
>>
>> > Minor issues:
>> > - Javadoc includes a couple of extraneous classes
>> > sun.misc.Perf
>>
>> Removed.
>>
>> > hellojpa.Main
>> > hellojpa.Message
>>
>> I believe I've successfully removed these from the javadocs.
>>
>> > - JARs are named "openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating" but unzip into
>> > "openjpa-0.9.6-incubating"
>>
>> This seems to be a weird maven side-effect. I'd like to defer fixing
>> this until later.
>>
>> > - distribution files that can be removed
>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-binary.zip.asc.md5
>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-binary.zip.asc.sha1
>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-source.zip.asc.md5
>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-source.zip.asc.sha1
>>
>> Maven automatically generated checksums for every file it uploads
>> (and I manually add the .asc GPG signature to the uploaded files).
>> Ideally, I'd like to look into fixing this at a later date.
>>
>> > - no .tar.gz archives
>>
>> I feel it is simpler to just have a since .zip file. Since everyone
>> who wants to use OpenJPA had Java installed (and, therefore, has
>> "jar" installed), anyone is capable of unpacking the distribution.
>>
>> Does anyone feel we need an additional .tar.gz archive for the
>> release?
>>
>>
>> > On 11/9/06, Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> On 11/9/06, Abe White <aw...@bea.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > +1
>> >> >
>> >>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> >> __
>> >> > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
>> >> contain
>> >> > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
>> >> affiliated
>> >> > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
>> >> and/or
>> >> > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
>> >> individual
>> >> > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
>> >> recipient,
>> >> > and have received this message in error, please immediately
>> >> return this
>> >> > by email and then delete it.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE RESULT] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating podling release
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Marc,
On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> Craig-
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> Please read this regarding votes. http://www.apache.org/foundation/
>> voting.html#ReleaseVotes
>>
>> <policy>
>> Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow a format
>> similar to majority approval -- except that the decision is
>> officially determined solely by whether at least three +1 votes
>> were registered. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the
>> community will table the vote to release if anyone identifies
>> serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, once
>> three or more positive votes have been garnered, lies with the
>> individual serving as release manager. The specifics of the
>> process may vary from project to project, but the 'minimum of
>> three +1 votes' rule is universal.
>> </policy>
>>
>> Things are slightly different in the incubator, where a big part
>> of incubation is protecting Apache from legal issues as a result
>> of releasing tainted code. See http://incubator.apache.org/guides/
>> releasemanagement.html. But much of the incubator release policy
>> is still TODO [sic].
>
> Yeah, I was wondering about that ... my concern was the message at
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cxf-dev/
> 200610.mbox/%3C200610131026.27794.daniel.kulp@iona.com%3E , which
> says that a -1 counts as a veto in terms of incubator releases.
That's what I was recalling as well. In the incubator, the release
manager will typically respin several times as the mentors and
observers of the incubator tell the podling what they've done wrong.
> Of course, this was just a mailing list thread, but in the absence
> of a specific documented policy, I chose to err on the side of
> paranoia and just re-start the vote.
It's not paranoia at all. If someone tells you "you've violated
Apache policy for trademarks, licenses, or IP" a wise person will
respin. If someone tells you "I don't like the punctuation in your
release note" you choose whether to respin or ignore.
>
>
>> The release manager (in this case, Marc) has large discretion on
>> releases. While vetoing a release is not technically possible, the
>> release manager will take constructive comments seriously,
>> especially from mentors, and respin a release as many times as
>> necessary to get consensus.
>
> I would have preferred to just continue the existing vote, but I
> was worried that while people were voting on one set of artifacts,
> and then I would swap them out at the last minute with re-spun
> versions and declare victory ... it seemed a little sketchy to me,
> even though the modifications made were very minor.
Continuing the vote would be wrong, since the earlier votes were for
one set of bits and the later ones for another.
>
> Do you object to re-starting the vote, or were your just trying to
> point out that it might not have been necessary?
No, I support your decisions both to respin the bits and to restart
the vote.
Craig
>
>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> -1 from Eddie, so the vote fails (since I believe it constitutes
>>> a veto).
>>>
>>> I'll re-start the vote with the fixed release files shortly.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2006, at 7:03 AM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>
>>>> Marc--
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good -- nice turnaround time. :) I agree that it's
>>>> fine to
>>>> defer some of these.
>>>>
>>>> In NOTICE.txt, be sure to remove this:
>>>>
>>>> Please read the different LICENSE files present in the
>>>> licenses directory of
>>>> this distribution.
>>>
>>> I just removed this as well. I hope it's the last problem with
>>> the release.
>>>
>>>
>>>> since I don't think that this is relevant to OpenJPA.
>>>>
>>>> Eddie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/12/06, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Eddie-
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I've fixed most of these and am re-building the release.
>>>>> Unless
>>>>> anyone comes up with any other objections, I'll start a new vote
>>>>> tomorrow morning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, see my comments inline below...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 11, 2006, at 9:11 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Great job on this release -- we're really down to nitty-little
>>>>> > detail issues with the distribution. More detailed comments
>>>>> are below
>>>>> > -- the highlights fall into two major buckets:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > #1: information needed in NOTICE.txt. This refers to the
>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>> > project; it also needs to refer to the source files for the
>>>>> binary
>>>>> > persistence-api JAR file as per the CDDL 1.0 license. More
>>>>> > information on ASF policy relative to this license is here:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Additionally, NOTICE.txt should contain the copyrights for
>>>>> 3rd party
>>>>> > Serp / persistence-api JARs. For example:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/
>>>>> NOTICE.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixed. If anything at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/
>>>>> openjpa/trunk/openjpa-project/NOTICE.txt still looks amiss, please
>>>>> let us know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > #2: ASF source headers. There are a bunch of files in the
>>>>> source
>>>>> > distribution that don't have source headers. There's a great
>>>>> tool
>>>>> > that one of the Incubator PMC members wrote that checks for
>>>>> these
>>>>> > headers. It's super easy to checkout, build, and run and can
>>>>> be found
>>>>> > here:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://code.google.com/p/arat/
>>>>> >
>>>>> > These are listed below.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've fixed most of these. See below.
>>>>>
>>>>> > -1 until #1 is fixed because we need to be compliant with
>>>>> licenses
>>>>> > of bundled 3rd party JARs. I'd suggest fixing #2 as well but
>>>>> leave
>>>>> > that to the community to decide -- though the Incubator PMC
>>>>> is looking
>>>>> > more closely at license headers these days. :)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Eddie
>>>>> >
>>>>> > =====
>>>>> > Items checked:
>>>>> > - md5 signatures
>>>>> > - sha1 signatures
>>>>> > - license headers on archived files
>>>>> > - example builds and runs
>>>>> > - documentation looks good
>>>>> > - license compatibility of JAR files
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Issues that should be addressed before release:
>>>>> > - NOTICE.txt references the "ActiveMQ" distribution
>>>>> > - as per CDDL 1.0, NOTICE.txt must refer to the source for the
>>>>> > persistence-api sources. For more information about
>>>>> including CDDL
>>>>> > 1.0 licensed binaries, see:
>>>>> > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> > - source archive includes sun/misc/Perf.java
>>>>>
>>>>> It was only there as a compilation stub. However, since it was
>>>>> only
>>>>> required for JDK 1.3 and lower, and since we just voted to drop
>>>>> support for JDK 1.3, I just went ahead and deleted it.
>>>>>
>>>>> > - files missing license files:
>>>>> > <binary>/examples/META-INF/persistence.xml
>>>>> > <source>:
>>>>> > - **/*.properties
>>>>> > - **/pom.xml
>>>>> > - **/*.xml
>>>>> > - **/*.rsrc
>>>>> > - **/JPQL.jjt
>>>>> > - **/*.ProductDerivation
>>>>> > - **/*.ExpressionParser
>>>>> > - **/*.PersistenceProvider
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > - Java files without LICENSE headers -- there were 17 of these.
>>>>> > Found using:
>>>>> > find . -name "*.java" -exec grep --files-without-match
>>>>> > "LICENSE" {} ;
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> > - openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating.pom missing license header
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixed, I think (if you are looking at pom files that are re-
>>>>> generated
>>>>> by the maven process, then they don't preserve comments, and thus
>>>>> will lose the license header).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Minor issues:
>>>>> > - Javadoc includes a couple of extraneous classes
>>>>> > sun.misc.Perf
>>>>>
>>>>> Removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> > hellojpa.Main
>>>>> > hellojpa.Message
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe I've successfully removed these from the javadocs.
>>>>>
>>>>> > - JARs are named "openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating" but unzip
>>>>> into
>>>>> > "openjpa-0.9.6-incubating"
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems to be a weird maven side-effect. I'd like to defer
>>>>> fixing
>>>>> this until later.
>>>>>
>>>>> > - distribution files that can be removed
>>>>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-binary.zip.asc.md5
>>>>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-binary.zip.asc.sha1
>>>>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-source.zip.asc.md5
>>>>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-source.zip.asc.sha1
>>>>>
>>>>> Maven automatically generated checksums for every file it uploads
>>>>> (and I manually add the .asc GPG signature to the uploaded files).
>>>>> Ideally, I'd like to look into fixing this at a later date.
>>>>>
>>>>> > - no .tar.gz archives
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel it is simpler to just have a since .zip file. Since
>>>>> everyone
>>>>> who wants to use OpenJPA had Java installed (and, therefore, has
>>>>> "jar" installed), anyone is capable of unpacking the distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone feel we need an additional .tar.gz archive for the
>>>>> release?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > On 11/9/06, Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> +1
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On 11/9/06, Abe White <aw...@bea.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > +1
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>>>> ___
>>>>> >> __
>>>>> >> > Notice: This email message, together with any
>>>>> attachments, may
>>>>> >> contain
>>>>> >> > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
>>>>> >> affiliated
>>>>> >> > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
>>>>> copyrighted
>>>>> >> and/or
>>>>> >> > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
>>>>> >> individual
>>>>> >> > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
>>>>> >> recipient,
>>>>> >> > and have received this message in error, please immediately
>>>>> >> return this
>>>>> >> > by email and then delete it.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: [VOTE RESULT] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating podling release
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
Craig-
On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> Please read this regarding votes. http://www.apache.org/foundation/
> voting.html#ReleaseVotes
>
> <policy>
> Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow a format
> similar to majority approval -- except that the decision is
> officially determined solely by whether at least three +1 votes
> were registered. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the
> community will table the vote to release if anyone identifies
> serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, once
> three or more positive votes have been garnered, lies with the
> individual serving as release manager. The specifics of the process
> may vary from project to project, but the 'minimum of three +1
> votes' rule is universal.
> </policy>
>
> Things are slightly different in the incubator, where a big part of
> incubation is protecting Apache from legal issues as a result of
> releasing tainted code. See http://incubator.apache.org/guides/
> releasemanagement.html. But much of the incubator release policy is
> still TODO [sic].
Yeah, I was wondering about that ... my concern was the message at
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cxf-dev/
200610.mbox/%3C200610131026.27794.daniel.kulp@iona.com%3E , which
says that a -1 counts as a veto in terms of incubator releases. Of
course, this was just a mailing list thread, but in the absence of a
specific documented policy, I chose to err on the side of paranoia
and just re-start the vote.
> The release manager (in this case, Marc) has large discretion on
> releases. While vetoing a release is not technically possible, the
> release manager will take constructive comments seriously,
> especially from mentors, and respin a release as many times as
> necessary to get consensus.
I would have preferred to just continue the existing vote, but I was
worried that while people were voting on one set of artifacts, and
then I would swap them out at the last minute with re-spun versions
and declare victory ... it seemed a little sketchy to me, even though
the modifications made were very minor.
Do you object to re-starting the vote, or were your just trying to
point out that it might not have been necessary?
> Craig
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
>>
>> -1 from Eddie, so the vote fails (since I believe it constitutes a
>> veto).
>>
>> I'll re-start the vote with the fixed release files shortly.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2006, at 7:03 AM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>
>>> Marc--
>>>
>>> Sounds good -- nice turnaround time. :) I agree that it's fine to
>>> defer some of these.
>>>
>>> In NOTICE.txt, be sure to remove this:
>>>
>>> Please read the different LICENSE files present in the licenses
>>> directory of
>>> this distribution.
>>
>> I just removed this as well. I hope it's the last problem with the
>> release.
>>
>>
>>> since I don't think that this is relevant to OpenJPA.
>>>
>>> Eddie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/12/06, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Eddie-
>>>>
>>>> OK, I've fixed most of these and am re-building the release. Unless
>>>> anyone comes up with any other objections, I'll start a new vote
>>>> tomorrow morning.
>>>>
>>>> Also, see my comments inline below...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 11, 2006, at 9:11 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Great job on this release -- we're really down to nitty-little
>>>> > detail issues with the distribution. More detailed comments
>>>> are below
>>>> > -- the highlights fall into two major buckets:
>>>> >
>>>> > #1: information needed in NOTICE.txt. This refers to the
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> > project; it also needs to refer to the source files for the
>>>> binary
>>>> > persistence-api JAR file as per the CDDL 1.0 license. More
>>>> > information on ASF policy relative to this license is here:
>>>> >
>>>> > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>>>> >
>>>> > Additionally, NOTICE.txt should contain the copyrights for 3rd
>>>> party
>>>> > Serp / persistence-api JARs. For example:
>>>> >
>>>> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/
>>>> NOTICE.txt
>>>>
>>>> Fixed. If anything at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/
>>>> openjpa/trunk/openjpa-project/NOTICE.txt still looks amiss, please
>>>> let us know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > #2: ASF source headers. There are a bunch of files in the source
>>>> > distribution that don't have source headers. There's a great
>>>> tool
>>>> > that one of the Incubator PMC members wrote that checks for these
>>>> > headers. It's super easy to checkout, build, and run and can
>>>> be found
>>>> > here:
>>>> >
>>>> > http://code.google.com/p/arat/
>>>> >
>>>> > These are listed below.
>>>>
>>>> I've fixed most of these. See below.
>>>>
>>>> > -1 until #1 is fixed because we need to be compliant with
>>>> licenses
>>>> > of bundled 3rd party JARs. I'd suggest fixing #2 as well but
>>>> leave
>>>> > that to the community to decide -- though the Incubator PMC is
>>>> looking
>>>> > more closely at license headers these days. :)
>>>> >
>>>> > Eddie
>>>> >
>>>> > =====
>>>> > Items checked:
>>>> > - md5 signatures
>>>> > - sha1 signatures
>>>> > - license headers on archived files
>>>> > - example builds and runs
>>>> > - documentation looks good
>>>> > - license compatibility of JAR files
>>>> >
>>>> > Issues that should be addressed before release:
>>>> > - NOTICE.txt references the "ActiveMQ" distribution
>>>> > - as per CDDL 1.0, NOTICE.txt must refer to the source for the
>>>> > persistence-api sources. For more information about including
>>>> CDDL
>>>> > 1.0 licensed binaries, see:
>>>> > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>>>>
>>>> This has been fixed.
>>>>
>>>> > - source archive includes sun/misc/Perf.java
>>>>
>>>> It was only there as a compilation stub. However, since it was only
>>>> required for JDK 1.3 and lower, and since we just voted to drop
>>>> support for JDK 1.3, I just went ahead and deleted it.
>>>>
>>>> > - files missing license files:
>>>> > <binary>/examples/META-INF/persistence.xml
>>>> > <source>:
>>>> > - **/*.properties
>>>> > - **/pom.xml
>>>> > - **/*.xml
>>>> > - **/*.rsrc
>>>> > - **/JPQL.jjt
>>>> > - **/*.ProductDerivation
>>>> > - **/*.ExpressionParser
>>>> > - **/*.PersistenceProvider
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > - Java files without LICENSE headers -- there were 17 of these.
>>>> > Found using:
>>>> > find . -name "*.java" -exec grep --files-without-match
>>>> > "LICENSE" {} ;
>>>>
>>>> Fixed.
>>>>
>>>> > - openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating.pom missing license header
>>>>
>>>> Fixed, I think (if you are looking at pom files that are re-
>>>> generated
>>>> by the maven process, then they don't preserve comments, and thus
>>>> will lose the license header).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Minor issues:
>>>> > - Javadoc includes a couple of extraneous classes
>>>> > sun.misc.Perf
>>>>
>>>> Removed.
>>>>
>>>> > hellojpa.Main
>>>> > hellojpa.Message
>>>>
>>>> I believe I've successfully removed these from the javadocs.
>>>>
>>>> > - JARs are named "openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating" but unzip
>>>> into
>>>> > "openjpa-0.9.6-incubating"
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be a weird maven side-effect. I'd like to defer
>>>> fixing
>>>> this until later.
>>>>
>>>> > - distribution files that can be removed
>>>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-binary.zip.asc.md5
>>>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-binary.zip.asc.sha1
>>>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-source.zip.asc.md5
>>>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-source.zip.asc.sha1
>>>>
>>>> Maven automatically generated checksums for every file it uploads
>>>> (and I manually add the .asc GPG signature to the uploaded files).
>>>> Ideally, I'd like to look into fixing this at a later date.
>>>>
>>>> > - no .tar.gz archives
>>>>
>>>> I feel it is simpler to just have a since .zip file. Since everyone
>>>> who wants to use OpenJPA had Java installed (and, therefore, has
>>>> "jar" installed), anyone is capable of unpacking the distribution.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone feel we need an additional .tar.gz archive for the
>>>> release?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On 11/9/06, Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> +1
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 11/9/06, Abe White <aw...@bea.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > +1
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>>> __
>>>> >> __
>>>> >> > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments,
>>>> may
>>>> >> contain
>>>> >> > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
>>>> >> affiliated
>>>> >> > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
>>>> copyrighted
>>>> >> and/or
>>>> >> > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
>>>> >> individual
>>>> >> > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
>>>> >> recipient,
>>>> >> > and have received this message in error, please immediately
>>>> >> return this
>>>> >> > by email and then delete it.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: [VOTE RESULT] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating podling release
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Marc,
Please read this regarding votes. http://www.apache.org/foundation/
voting.html#ReleaseVotes
<policy>
Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow a format
similar to majority approval -- except that the decision is
officially determined solely by whether at least three +1 votes were
registered. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will
table the vote to release if anyone identifies serious problems, but
in most cases the ultimate decision, once three or more positive
votes have been garnered, lies with the individual serving as release
manager. The specifics of the process may vary from project to
project, but the 'minimum of three +1 votes' rule is universal.
</policy>
Things are slightly different in the incubator, where a big part of
incubation is protecting Apache from legal issues as a result of
releasing tainted code. See http://incubator.apache.org/guides/
releasemanagement.html. But much of the incubator release policy is
still TODO [sic].
The release manager (in this case, Marc) has large discretion on
releases. While vetoing a release is not technically possible, the
release manager will take constructive comments seriously, especially
from mentors, and respin a release as many times as necessary to get
consensus.
Craig
On Nov 12, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> -1 from Eddie, so the vote fails (since I believe it constitutes a
> veto).
>
> I'll re-start the vote with the fixed release files shortly.
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 7:03 AM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>
>> Marc--
>>
>> Sounds good -- nice turnaround time. :) I agree that it's fine to
>> defer some of these.
>>
>> In NOTICE.txt, be sure to remove this:
>>
>> Please read the different LICENSE files present in the licenses
>> directory of
>> this distribution.
>
> I just removed this as well. I hope it's the last problem with the
> release.
>
>
>> since I don't think that this is relevant to OpenJPA.
>>
>> Eddie
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/12/06, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Eddie-
>>>
>>> OK, I've fixed most of these and am re-building the release. Unless
>>> anyone comes up with any other objections, I'll start a new vote
>>> tomorrow morning.
>>>
>>> Also, see my comments inline below...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 11, 2006, at 9:11 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>
>>> > Great job on this release -- we're really down to nitty-little
>>> > detail issues with the distribution. More detailed comments
>>> are below
>>> > -- the highlights fall into two major buckets:
>>> >
>>> > #1: information needed in NOTICE.txt. This refers to the ActiveMQ
>>> > project; it also needs to refer to the source files for the binary
>>> > persistence-api JAR file as per the CDDL 1.0 license. More
>>> > information on ASF policy relative to this license is here:
>>> >
>>> > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>>> >
>>> > Additionally, NOTICE.txt should contain the copyrights for 3rd
>>> party
>>> > Serp / persistence-api JARs. For example:
>>> >
>>> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/NOTICE.txt
>>>
>>> Fixed. If anything at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/
>>> openjpa/trunk/openjpa-project/NOTICE.txt still looks amiss, please
>>> let us know.
>>>
>>>
>>> > #2: ASF source headers. There are a bunch of files in the source
>>> > distribution that don't have source headers. There's a great tool
>>> > that one of the Incubator PMC members wrote that checks for these
>>> > headers. It's super easy to checkout, build, and run and can
>>> be found
>>> > here:
>>> >
>>> > http://code.google.com/p/arat/
>>> >
>>> > These are listed below.
>>>
>>> I've fixed most of these. See below.
>>>
>>> > -1 until #1 is fixed because we need to be compliant with
>>> licenses
>>> > of bundled 3rd party JARs. I'd suggest fixing #2 as well but
>>> leave
>>> > that to the community to decide -- though the Incubator PMC is
>>> looking
>>> > more closely at license headers these days. :)
>>> >
>>> > Eddie
>>> >
>>> > =====
>>> > Items checked:
>>> > - md5 signatures
>>> > - sha1 signatures
>>> > - license headers on archived files
>>> > - example builds and runs
>>> > - documentation looks good
>>> > - license compatibility of JAR files
>>> >
>>> > Issues that should be addressed before release:
>>> > - NOTICE.txt references the "ActiveMQ" distribution
>>> > - as per CDDL 1.0, NOTICE.txt must refer to the source for the
>>> > persistence-api sources. For more information about including
>>> CDDL
>>> > 1.0 licensed binaries, see:
>>> > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>>>
>>> This has been fixed.
>>>
>>> > - source archive includes sun/misc/Perf.java
>>>
>>> It was only there as a compilation stub. However, since it was only
>>> required for JDK 1.3 and lower, and since we just voted to drop
>>> support for JDK 1.3, I just went ahead and deleted it.
>>>
>>> > - files missing license files:
>>> > <binary>/examples/META-INF/persistence.xml
>>> > <source>:
>>> > - **/*.properties
>>> > - **/pom.xml
>>> > - **/*.xml
>>> > - **/*.rsrc
>>> > - **/JPQL.jjt
>>> > - **/*.ProductDerivation
>>> > - **/*.ExpressionParser
>>> > - **/*.PersistenceProvider
>>>
>>>
>>> > - Java files without LICENSE headers -- there were 17 of these.
>>> > Found using:
>>> > find . -name "*.java" -exec grep --files-without-match
>>> > "LICENSE" {} ;
>>>
>>> Fixed.
>>>
>>> > - openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating.pom missing license header
>>>
>>> Fixed, I think (if you are looking at pom files that are re-
>>> generated
>>> by the maven process, then they don't preserve comments, and thus
>>> will lose the license header).
>>>
>>>
>>> > Minor issues:
>>> > - Javadoc includes a couple of extraneous classes
>>> > sun.misc.Perf
>>>
>>> Removed.
>>>
>>> > hellojpa.Main
>>> > hellojpa.Message
>>>
>>> I believe I've successfully removed these from the javadocs.
>>>
>>> > - JARs are named "openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating" but unzip into
>>> > "openjpa-0.9.6-incubating"
>>>
>>> This seems to be a weird maven side-effect. I'd like to defer fixing
>>> this until later.
>>>
>>> > - distribution files that can be removed
>>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-binary.zip.asc.md5
>>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-binary.zip.asc.sha1
>>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-source.zip.asc.md5
>>> > openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-source.zip.asc.sha1
>>>
>>> Maven automatically generated checksums for every file it uploads
>>> (and I manually add the .asc GPG signature to the uploaded files).
>>> Ideally, I'd like to look into fixing this at a later date.
>>>
>>> > - no .tar.gz archives
>>>
>>> I feel it is simpler to just have a since .zip file. Since everyone
>>> who wants to use OpenJPA had Java installed (and, therefore, has
>>> "jar" installed), anyone is capable of unpacking the distribution.
>>>
>>> Does anyone feel we need an additional .tar.gz archive for the
>>> release?
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 11/9/06, Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> +1
>>> >>
>>> >> On 11/9/06, Abe White <aw...@bea.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > +1
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>> _
>>> >> __
>>> >> > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
>>> >> contain
>>> >> > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
>>> >> affiliated
>>> >> > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
>>> >> and/or
>>> >> > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
>>> >> individual
>>> >> > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
>>> >> recipient,
>>> >> > and have received this message in error, please immediately
>>> >> return this
>>> >> > by email and then delete it.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!