brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Svetoslav Neykov <svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
Subject [CANCEL][VOTE] Release Apache Brooklyn 0.10.0 [rc1]
Date Fri, 09 Dec 2016 10:42:49 GMT
I am cancelling the vote due to the omission of the NOTICE file in the Karaf distribution.
Take this as a chance to suggest including any new PRs that you think would be useful.

> Also, the karaf distro contains ./META-INF/LICENSE which is *just* the apache license,
rather than also including the other 3rd party licenses (which is done in ./LICENSE, as per
the instructions at [2]). Should we change that as well? Or should we delete the file ./META-INF/LICENSE?

Note that there's a DEPENDENCIES file in there as well which includes this information. We
already have the same (and more) in the top-level LICENSE file so I think we can remove them
(if at all possible). They are generated by the maven-karaf-plugin.

Svet.


> On 7.12.2016 г., at 23:34, Aled Sage <aled.sage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> -1 (binding)
> 
> This is because the NOTICE file is missing at the top level of the karaf distro. In [1],
it says "The NOTICE file must included within the distributed next to the LICENSE file."
> 
> I interpret that "must" as meaning we need to produce a new release candidate, so that
the NOTICE file is at the root (next to the LICENSE file).
> 
> Very happy to change my vote (to "+1") if someone with better Apache knowledge tells
me that it's ok to just have the NOTICE in ./META-INF/NOTICE.
> 
> Also, the karaf distro contains ./META-INF/LICENSE which is *just* the apache license,
rather than also including the other 3rd party licenses (which is done in ./LICENSE, as per
the instructions at [2]). Should we change that as well? Or should we delete the file ./META-INF/LICENSE?
> 
> ---
> Other than that, the release looks great - works a treat deploying to various clouds!
> 
> Aled
> 
> p.s. even if producing a new RC, I don't think it's worth changing the vagrant image
- we can live with "ubuntu/wily64" for this release.
> 
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#attribution-notices
> [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses
> 
> 
> On 07/12/2016 11:57, Geoff Macartney wrote:
>> thanks Richard,
>> 
>> I thought that would be the case but worth asking.  Hope the above PR will
>> address it and can be cherry-picked for the rc.
>> 
>> Geoff
>> 
>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 11:43 Richard Downer <richard@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Geoff, all,
>>> 
>>> It's generally required that release artifacts have the LICENSE and NOTICE
>>> files in the root. Artifacts that are machine-read like JARs and their ilk
>>> can be excepted, but they should instead have those files in the most
>>> appropriate place - META-INF for JARs.
>>> 
>>> So this would be a release blocker, IMO. However I will at least look at
>>> the release candidate and test it before casting a vote :-)
>>> 
>>> Richard.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7 December 2016 at 11:34, Geoff Macartney <
>>> geoff.macartney@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Actually I see the Karaf distro does have a NOTICE file, it's just in the
>>>> META-INF directory.  Is there any rule that says the file must be in the
>>>> root directory?  Maybe it's fine as it is?
>>>> 
>>>> I've raised https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/68 in any case,
>>>> to
>>>> have a copy of NOTICE in the top level.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 10:17 Geoff Macartney <
>>>> geoff.macartney@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> thanks Svet,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'll say +0, think we should fix the NOTICE in Karaf distro.   No
>>> strong
>>>>> feeling as to what we should do with the Vagrant - while I agree it
>>> would
>>>>> be nice in general to have an up-to-date image in the Vagrant, if there
>>>> are
>>>>> issues with Xenial and Vagrant then that particular upgrade might be
>>> more
>>>>> of a hindrance to users than a help.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My other checks done on this, for completeness' sake:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> [x] Download links work.
>>>>> [x] Binaries work. (classic launcher, Karaf, RPM build)
>>>>> [x] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
>>>>> [x] Expanded source archive matches contents of RC tag.
>>>>> [x] Expanded source archive builds and passes tests.
>>>>> [x] LICENSE is present and correct. (classic launcher, Karaf, RPM)
>>>>> [x] NOTICE is present and correct, including copyright date (classic,
>>>> RPM;
>>>>> for Karaf see [2] previously)
>>>>> [x] All files have license headers where appropriate.
>>>>> [-] All dependencies have compatible licenses.
>>>>> [x] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tested on Ubuntu (RPM on Centos7):
>>>>> 
>>>>> Classic launcher (tested with Java 7 & Java 8)
>>>>> Catalog sample app 1 deployed on AWS
>>>>> sample app 2 deployed on GCE
>>>>> sample app 3 deployed on softlayer
>>>>> sample app 4 deployed on openstack nova
>>>>> 
>>>>> Karaf launcher
>>>>> sample app 1 deployed on BYON
>>>>> sample app 2 deployed on AWS
>>>>> sample app 3 deployed on GCE => not supported on Karaf; deployed
>>> instead
>>>>> on openstack nova
>>>>> sample app 4 deployed on softlayer
>>>>> 
>>>>> RPM build:
>>>>> RPM installs and runs Brooklyn successfully
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tests with "br" tool (on MacOS, Linux):
>>>>> Catalog updates
>>>>> Applications stopped
>>>>> br app
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Geoff
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 07:31 Svetoslav Neykov <
>>>>> svetoslav.neykov@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Geoff,
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] Documentation and web site content is excluded on purpose.
>>>>> [2] Yes it should. Good spot!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Svet.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 6.12.2016 г., at 19:54, Geoff Macartney <
>>>>> geoff.macartney@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> A couple of questions:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1] Should the apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-src archive contain the
>>>>>> brooklyn-docs? (It hasn't in previous releases, but still worth
>>>> asking.)
>>>>>> [2] Should the Karaf distro folder have its own copy of the NOTICE
>>>> file?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 at 11:52 Svetoslav Neykov <
>>>>>> svetoslav.neykov@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache Brooklyn
>>> 0.10.0.
>>>>>>> This release comprises of a source code distribution, and a
>>>>> corresponding
>>>>>>> binary distribution, and Maven artifacts.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The source and binary distributions, including signatures, digests,
>>>> etc.
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> be found at:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/brooklyn/apache-
>>>> brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1
>>>>>>> The artifact SHA-256 checksums are as follows:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  9b75abf099e1b0ac2ff3193ef58b53e4d323bd377faefac1672aef61d994b45c
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-1.noarch.rpm
>>>>>>>  6d86188fe2e210fa3f0e40220d236c43512298da1c158c95f4497ea54c3882e7
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-bin.tar.gz
>>>>>>>  5b37d0d2da964c91bc1655a5ce1bb277e5f84265906c479c697821a855235a2e
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-bin.zip
>>>>>>>  f1d66690fbf4786b1abc762b2c215dd392e96c1ac0eee49088857c91594b4f79
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-karaf.tar.gz
>>>>>>>  54d3b492e477c1877cb0bb9fd17063403596a02fbc3fdf9af588827053175bad
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-karaf.zip
>>>>>>>  7d8ed704cc2146756f6ac6616de03c3d5d71953ff60094c1e017efdefb17c079
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-src.tar.gz
>>>>>>>  a9e652596800010d01982703aaf90f0ca76e8d471b0399717c1d96619c72865c
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-src.zip
>>>>>>>  55e5044ce2a6ae76886bb10d6e68582ef94b8f024513840c1aa8203c068eccd0
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-client-cli-linux.tar.gz
>>>>>>>  45799528ed0444b6a600918d33419bcf4d7c0eaf5cb58620a2c9ae3f7320ca62
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-client-cli-linux.zip
>>>>>>>  21bb2186787414226220101c6080ec0afffbb8d008c46a33a39b51bceb65600a
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-client-cli-macosx.tar.gz
>>>>>>>  8d80ed81d5f1940700e838b3d6bf1255214706ede5a51a48bf46214a0b87d5c4
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-client-cli-macosx.zip
>>>>>>>  a2cb0b1efc7f93da96cae2495e2db63834cfaec29b5eefcf8107f7bec38e6bd3
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-client-cli-windows.tar.gz
>>>>>>>  61b96bc68306aedb0e3477083077c940893e27b1a58322ad296f120fd5f40978
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-client-cli-windows.zip
>>>>>>>  13462d97693607a33d59a0a8288c20a2cd2d62607df796a5db5b332a183a7234
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-vagrant.tar.gz
>>>>>>>  c67e134d4eb93ce1e6cc8124c31ca29bedd38bd2ea41eb9389a6335ee7c1ba0b
>>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-vagrant.zip
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The Nexus staging repository for the Maven artifacts is located
at:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
>>>> orgapachebrooklyn-1030
>>>>>>> All release artifacts are signed with the key with the following
>>>>>>> fingerprint:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    9F9C CBDA 89B3 0F81 162C  673C 0FE9 0F00 C0DE F000
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> KEYS file available here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/brooklyn/KEYS
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The artifacts were built from git commit IDs:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> brooklyn: c496c5e9167f9320d08c21d5bce50f16a2325268
>>>>>>> brooklyn-client: 0594d27aa68ac1c86e2b4672a447336042d92496
>>>>>>> brooklyn-dist: 09a1ca89cd7d5a468438025d7f2121ec7c52ffc6
>>>>>>> brooklyn-docs: f75d094f51c49cd5aa51e213bafc51da3d4ff01c
>>>>>>> brooklyn-library: 1a1962382413b0e5adbfb52bb33968df265b35c5
>>>>>>> brooklyn-server: 635068a6985edf2e5dfbb9598d8dde2890c32ad3
>>>>>>> brooklyn-ui: a6e2e8bccfdd98b4f7155b5be86f5b85149e0f33
>>>>>>> All of the above have been tagged as "apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Brooklyn 0.10.0.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Brooklyn 0.10.0
>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>> Svet.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> CHECKLIST for reference
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [ ] Download links work.
>>>>>>> [ ] Binaries work.
>>>>>>> [ ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
>>>>>>> [ ] Expanded source archive matches contents of RC tag.
>>>>>>> [ ] Expanded source archive builds and passes tests.
>>>>>>> [ ] LICENSE is present and correct.
>>>>>>> [ ] NOTICE is present and correct, including copyright date.
>>>>>>> [ ] All files have license headers where appropriate.
>>>>>>> [ ] All dependencies have compatible licenses.
>>>>>>> [ ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.
>>>>>>> [ ] I follow this project’s commits list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message