bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Martin <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Date Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:27:12 GMT
That's fantastic, Brane. Thanks for the input. I will raise a new 
release issues ticket to collect these issues.

On 24/10/12 12:27, Branko ─îibej wrote:
> +1 to release, but please note a couple issues:
>    * the tarball includes a Mac OS Funder turd (.DS_Store). Please make
>      sure that doesn't happen in future.

Interesting.. I assume that --exclude=.DS_Store is enough to add to the 
tar command when running on OSX.
>    * you should create a tag from the released revision before proposing
>      the vote on general@incubator; 0.1.0 has one, 0.2 doesn't and that's
>      confusing.

That seems reasonable. I think we expect the release manager branch to 
help control changes as they work. If the release manager notes the 
revision from which the final release tarball is made then a tag can be 
created off the branch at that revision.

>        o Also note the version naming discrepancy, 0.1.0 vs. 0.2 (without
>          the .0); not really important, but could be an incubator troll
>          trap. :)

If that is seen as a real problem, I would hope that we could address it 
in the next release. If that is our biggest issue it would seem to be 
pretty good shape overall.

>    * I don't quite understand why the dashboard default-pages are
>      mentioned in .rat-ignore, surely we should be able to have the
>      proper license headers in there.

Well.. it would be possible to put any such license headers in these 
files with comment syntax:

      Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
      ... etc ...

On the other hand, we might not want such headers to be there when a 
user decides to edit them so we might prefer the content to be generated 
instead if that helps both considerations. Any further thoughts on this?

> -- Brane
> P.S.: I'm a bit confused about the status of our trac tree. We make it
> part of the (signed) source release, but do we have a code grant for it?
> If we do, why isn't our copy licensed under ALv2? If we don't, how come
> we're including it in the release tarball?

Actually I have no idea about whether there is a code grant but, as far 
as I am aware, that would only change the license, not our ability to 


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message