apex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Weise <tho...@datatorrent.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Apex Core Release 3.2.0-incubating (RC1)
Date Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:24:14 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message