brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Svetoslav Neykov <svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
Subject Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:57:56 GMT
I guess it's all about this bit of the license:

The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil

which doesn't fit in legalese speak :)


> On 24.11.2016 г., at 17:27, Svetoslav Neykov <svetoslav.neykov@cloudsoftcorp.com>
wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the heads up Richard. I'll check whether we are using it.
> 
> Svet.
> 
> 
>> On 24.11.2016 г., at 16:56, Richard Downer <richard@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Svet,
>> 
>> There's a discussion going on elsewhere in ASF[1] about The JSON License[2]
>> - it was previously acceptable to ASF and was on the Category A list[3].
>> However, it's been realised that the decision to place it in Category A was
>> incorrect, and it has now been moved to Category X. This means that
>> software covered by The JSON License must not be a transitive dependency of
>> Apache software releases.
>> 
>> I believe that the software this affects is the "json.org" or "org.json"
>> Java JSON library. I don't think that we use this, but it's possible that
>> it's a transitive dependency.
>> 
>> If this comes up in your LICENSE rework then we'll need to take some action
>> on it - we have a grace period so it doesn't necessarily have to be
>> replaced this release, although we would need to update NOTICE. However
>> there exist drop-in compatible replacements so it may be easier to just
>> deal with it now.
>> 
>> If you'd like me to link you to more of the discussion then I can do that.
>> 
>> Richard.
>> 
>> [1]
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bb18f942ce7eb83c11438303c818b885810fb76385979490366720d5@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
>> [2]http://www.json.org/license.html
>> [3]https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-a
>> 
>> On 24 November 2016 at 13:52, Svetoslav Neykov <
>> svetoslav.neykov@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> That's some good news. Thanks for taking the time to look at this Andrea.
>>> I also have some progress to share. Today I was finally able to build
>>> Brooklyn with all tests passing (consistently at that) - on a branch that
>>> had all my recent PRs. Thanks Geoff for reviewing and merging all of them.
>>> I'm currently checking whether our LICENSE files need an update because of
>>> updated dependencies and fixing the corresponding scripts to work with the
>>> current project structure. Next will turn my attention to testing the
>>> jclouds 1.9.3 PRs. As soon as they are merged we can have our first RC.
>>> 
>>> Also would be nice to include a proper fix for what #452 [1] tried to
>>> solve (but failed at).
>>> Any other suggestions for PRs to include in the RC are welcome.
>>> 
>>> Our change log needs some love so any help there will be greatly
>>> appreciated.
>>> 
>>> Svet.
>>> 
>>>> On 24.11.2016 г., at 15:16, Andrea Turli <andrea.turli@cloudsoftcorp.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi
>>>> 
>>>> jclouds 1.9.3 is officially out -- see
>>>> http://markmail.org/thread/qlapnppmfbilje7p for more details
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> 
>>>> FYI @bostko already created this PR to bump jclouds version
>>>> https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/457
>>>> 
>>>> I've generated the dependency:list from tag rel/jclouds-1.9.2 and
>>>> rel/jclouds-1.9.3 from jclouds/jclouds repos (see
>>>> https://gist.github.com/andreaturli/b7c178519ab4d029d562643426a2738d and
>>>> https://gist.github.com/andreaturli/8d54e4340ef0a4c650022396b4b54b89)
>>> and
>>>> apart from org.apache.jclouds versions I can't see any new version for
>>> the
>>>> transitive dependencies.
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> 
>>>> I've also checked the swift vs openstack-swift issue when targeting the
>>>> brooklyn persistence to IBM SoftLayer Object Storage: it works fine with
>>>> jclouds 1.9.3 and jclouds 2.0.0 so this shouldn't be an issue for the
>>>> release. (see https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-examples/pull/90)
>>>> 
>>>> HTH,
>>>> Andrea
>>>> 
>>>> On 18 November 2016 at 12:19, Andrea Turli <andrea.turli@cloudsoftcorp.
>>> com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've released the Apache jclouds 1.9.3-rc1 (see [1] and [2] for more
>>>>> details)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please download, test and vote if you can!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Andrea
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
>>> 42f3a91008890939cf344f35320f86
>>>>> bcc48f814119655d7347c9bcca@%3Cdev.jclouds.apache.org%3E
>>>>> [2]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
>>> 94981b8f456785ffea640af3be9207
>>>>> 103bb4b7ee2f6d5bb783e98c2c@%3Cdev.jclouds.apache.org%3E
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 November 2016 at 19:01, Duncan Johnston Watt <duncan.johnstonwatt@
>>>>> cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 Andrea thanks
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Duncan Johnston-Watt
>>>>>> CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Twitter | @duncanjw
>>>>>> Mobile | +44 777 190 2653
>>>>>> Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt
>>>>>> Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 17 November 2016 at 06:09, Aled Sage <aled.sage@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +1, sounds great - thanks Andrea!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There are some really import jclouds fixes in 1.9.3-SNAPSHOT
(or
>>> 2.0.0)
>>>>>>> that we want, such as an OutOfMemoryError deploying to Softlayer
[1].
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It's worth hanging fire on Brooklyn 0.10.0 until we have a jclouds
>>> 1.9.3
>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In the meantime, we should still get our own house in order by
doing
>>> the
>>>>>>> first of the steps below (i.e. dealing with open PRs; ensuring
no-one
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> any imminent important contributions to make for 0.10.0, etc).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Aled
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-364
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 17/11/2016 11:37, Alex Heneveld wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That would be a great solution Andrea!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 17 Nov 2016 08:18, "Andrea Turli" <andrea.turli@cloudsoftcorp.com
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm happy to volunteer for releasing an official jclouds
1.9.3 which
>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> the half-house solution here.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> wdyt?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 17 November 2016 at 08:25, Svetoslav Neykov <
>>>>>>>>> svetoslav.neykov@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This is going to be the first release that actually works
in Karaf.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>> docs are still assuming classic though so I suggest
we keep
>>>>>> recommending
>>>>>>>>>> the classic distribution for 0.10.0.
>>>>>>>>>> For next release let's plan on updating the docs
and switching the
>>>>>>>>>> recommended distribution to the Karaf based one.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Svet.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 16.11.2016 г., at 13:22, Aled Sage <aled.sage@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> It's far past time that we did a Brooklyn 0.10.0
release! I
>>> suggest
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> aim for that soon.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> To that end, I suggest the following steps:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> * Deal with open PRs:
>>>>>>>>>>>   o People shout out about any PRs you think
are very important
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>     be merged, before that release.
>>>>>>>>>>>   o Review open PRs
>>>>>>>>>>>     (for any that won't get merged into 0.10.0,
clearly mark
>>>>>> them as
>>>>>>>>>>>     such and say why).
>>>>>>>>>>> * Any pending/remaining work:
>>>>>>>>>>>   o Give people until Friday evening (uk time)
to submit any
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>     very important PRs that are being working
on.
>>>>>>>>>>>   o People shout out about any known issues that
they see as
>>>>>>>>>>>     blockers for a release.
>>>>>>>>>>> * Do some initial testing, using master (before
Friday).
>>>>>>>>>>> * Aim to produce a first release candidate on
Friday evening (uk
>>>>>> time).
>>>>>>>>>>> * Do the usual QA/fix cycle until the release
is ready.
>>>>>>>>>>> * Write release notes, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Of the first steps, reviewing the PRs is a big
piece of work! If
>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> have time to help, then please lend a hand by reviewing
and/or
>>>>>> testing
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> PRs, and commenting on them.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think we should try to squeeze lots of
additional PRs into
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 0.10.0 - there is already a huge amount in there
compared to 0.9.0!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard, are our release process docs up-to-date
at [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Aled
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://brooklyn.apache.org/developers/committers/release-
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> process/index.html
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message