Re: Preparing code base for a release

[Pepijn Noltes <pe...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

This thread has been quiet for some time now, so I post to get the
attention back. As far as I can see Celix is ready for a first release.
Is anything holding us back?

Greetings,
Pepijn



On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Pepijn Noltes <pe...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Alexander Broekhuis <
> a.broekhuis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maybe not mentioned explicitly before, but I think it makes sense to do
>> only a source release of Celix.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>>
>> Things I have done:
>> > * Update all headers (license and source headers) to the correct format.
>> >   This includes replacing all personal names with a reference to the
>> Celix
>> > Project Team.
>> > * Removed the Eclipse files (project and launch files.
>> >   These files are not portable enough to be added to the repo.
>> >   I've tested the CMake project file generation, this works but.. see
>> some
>> > remarks in a previous email.
>> > * Created the LICENSE file
>> >   This needs some extra checking. As far as I can tell I have added all
>> > license for specific files we use in the codebase.
>>
>
> I double checked this and I think you got all the licenses.
>
>
>>  > * Created the KEYS file
>> >   For signing the release a key is needed, I created one for myself and
>> > added it to the KEYS file.
>> >
>>
>> Update:
>> * Added the DISCLAIMER file
>> * Added the NOTICE file
>> * Updated BUILDING
>>
>> As far as I can tell the repository now contains all required files. Can
>> anyone check this?
>>
>> A question concerning encryption:
>> The zip files used support decryption, the header mentions:
>>
>>   The encryption/decryption parts of this source code (as opposed to the
>>
>>   non-echoing password parts) were originally written in Europe.  The
>>
>>   whole source package can be freely distributed, including from the USA.
>>
>>   (Prior to January 2000, re-export from the US was a violation of US
>> law.)
>>
>> Does Celix need to make an additional notice somewhere about this?
>>
>>
>> Is there anything else missing? Or should I go on and create a RC tag and
>> release file?
>>
>
> I did find a small issue. The file celix/framework/private/src/unzip.c
> contains the text "For more info read MiniZip_info.txt", but this file is
> not present in the source tree. Should we add it ?.
>
> Expect for the small issue mentioned above I could not find anything
> missing and therefore IMO Celix is ready for a RC tag.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Pepijn
>
>
>

Re: Preparing code base for a release

[Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>]

I quoted the complete message, and added some comments in-line as well. Apart from that, I went over the codebase and checked some random source files, headers and make files. They all contained the appropriate headers.

On Sep 19, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Pepijn Noltes <pe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This thread has been quiet for some time now, so I post to get the
> attention back. As far as I can see Celix is ready for a first release.
> Is anything holding us back?

I don't think there is anything that should be holding you back, just finish the final remaining points and cut a release.

> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Pepijn Noltes <pe...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Alexander Broekhuis <
>> a.broekhuis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Maybe not mentioned explicitly before, but I think it makes sense to do
>>> only a source release of Celix.
>> 
>> I agree.

Yes, source releases are the official releases that an Apache project should do. Binary releases are mainly for convenience. There has been an extensive thread about this on the incubator mailing list. I am assuming the release is one big archive with all the sources in SVN?

>>> Things I have done:
>>>> * Update all headers (license and source headers) to the correct format.
>>>>  This includes replacing all personal names with a reference to the
>>> Celix
>>>> Project Team.
>>>> * Removed the Eclipse files (project and launch files.
>>>>  These files are not portable enough to be added to the repo.
>>>>  I've tested the CMake project file generation, this works but.. see
>>> some
>>>> remarks in a previous email.
>>>> * Created the LICENSE file
>>>>  This needs some extra checking. As far as I can tell I have added all
>>>> license for specific files we use in the codebase.
>> 
>> I double checked this and I think you got all the licenses.

Looks good. I am assuming that you will keep this file up to date whenever you add some third party dependency or code? I could not find a good way to review if "something is missing" from this file based on the project layout or anything. This is not a problem in itself, as long as there is some way of making sure no licenses are forgotten here.

>>>> * Created the KEYS file
>>>>  For signing the release a key is needed, I created one for myself and
>>>> added it to the KEYS file.
>>> 
>>> Update:
>>> * Added the DISCLAIMER file
>>> * Added the NOTICE file

Did someone already check which licenses also require a mention in the NOTICE file? I did not check and right now there is only the required mention of Apache itself.

>>> * Updated BUILDING
>>> 
>>> As far as I can tell the repository now contains all required files. Can
>>> anyone check this?
>>> 
>>> A question concerning encryption:
>>> The zip files used support decryption, the header mentions:
>>> 
>>>  The encryption/decryption parts of this source code (as opposed to the
>>> 
>>>  non-echoing password parts) were originally written in Europe.  The
>>> 
>>>  whole source package can be freely distributed, including from the USA.
>>> 
>>>  (Prior to January 2000, re-export from the US was a violation of US
>>> law.)
>>> 
>>> Does Celix need to make an additional notice somewhere about this?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Is there anything else missing? Or should I go on and create a RC tag and
>>> release file?
>>> 
>> 
>> I did find a small issue. The file celix/framework/private/src/unzip.c
>> contains the text "For more info read MiniZip_info.txt", but this file is
>> not present in the source tree. Should we add it ?.

Makes sense to do that.

>> Expect for the small issue mentioned above I could not find anything
>> missing and therefore IMO Celix is ready for a RC tag.

I agree, if someone can make sure that the NOTICE file is complete?!

Greetings, Marcel