apex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vlad Rozov <v.ro...@datatorrent.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Apex Core Release 3.2.0-incubating (RC1)
Date Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:33:32 GMT
+1 to cut new RC2 and submit it for voting.

Thank you,

Vlad

On 10/23/15 10:24, Thomas Weise wrote:
> We have -0 votes. I would propose rolling RC2 and starting a new vote. How
> do others feel about it?
>
> The changes to address issues raised are committed and we are ready to do
> so.
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/commits/release-3.2
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Thomas Weise <thomas@datatorrent.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> I also found a way to avoid DEPENDENCIES being added to the source archive.
>>
>> Should we roll another RC and call a new vote?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Vlad Rozov <v.rozov@datatorrent.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Justin,
>>>
>>> NOTICE files are automatically generated by Apache Maven remote resource
>>> plugin included and configured in the Apache parent pom. The configuration
>>> of the plugin points to org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 that has
>>> a known enhancement request (please see
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MASFRES-5). The same enhancement
>>> request suggest a workaround that we implemented to bring NOTICE files in
>>> sync.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/22/15 21:45, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The NOTICE files are added to the .jar files by a plugin that is setup in
>>>>> the Apache POM.
>>>>>
>>>> It should be possible to get it to use our NOTICE file. Sorry I don’t
>>>> know enough about how that all works to be able to suggest how to do that.
>>>> Perhaps another mentor does?
>>>>
>>>> I see examples of not matching the top level NOTICE elsewhere where this
>>>>> POM is used.
>>>>>
>>>> In projects that produce multiple jars the notice in each jar may be
>>>> different, as it depends on the jars contents, so it could be that you are
>>>> seeing. Read the guiding priniciple [1] and note that it applies to
>>>> binaries as well [2]. At some point I assume you may want to ship a
>>>> convenience binary to users?
>>>>
>>>> I also see other releases with .jar artifacts that have no NOTICE file
>>>>> in it.
>>>>>
>>>> That’s not in line with current Apache policy. See [3].
>>>> "Again, these artifacts may be distributed only if they contain LICENSE
>>>> and NOTICE files. For example, the Java artifact format is based on a
>>>> compressed directory structure and those projects wishing to distribute
>>>> jars must place LICENSE and NOTICE files in the META-INF directory within
>>>> the jar."
>>>>
>>>> You might want to look at similar JIRA issues here [4] and in particular
>>>> this one:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-178
>>>>
>>>> BTW as long as you raise a JIRA about this I don't think this need to be
>>>> fixed right away and can wait for a future incubating release. I wouldn’t
>>>> expect any IPMC member to consider this a blocking issue for a first
>>>> release. (And if they do point them to the JIRA).
>>>>
>>>> What is your recommendation, same NOTICE file in all .jar artifacts or
>>>>> generated NOTICE file with (changed) name of module?
>>>>>
>>>> It depends on the contents of each jar, again see 1 and 2. In Apex case
>>>> it may be that they are all the same, I’d need to take a close look at
the
>>>> jar’s contents to determine.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Justin
>>>>
>>>> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
>>>> 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
>>>> 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distribute-other-artifacts
>>>> 4.
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-864?jql=text%20~%20%22META-INF%20NOTICE%22
>>>>
>>>


Mime
View raw message