brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Downer <rich...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:56:06 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message