celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcel Offermans <marcel.offerm...@luminis.eu>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Celix version 1.0.0.incubating
Date Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:09:20 GMT
I'm in favor for forwarding the vote, we need someone else to look at it, or Roman to answer
to the responses given here. I tried pinging Roman last week. I think he must be very busy
at the moment, so let's try to move ahead!

Greetings, Marcel


On 07 Feb 2014, at 9:52 am, Pepijn Noltes <pepijnnoltes@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> I would like to propose to forward the release vote to the incubator
> mailing list We got two +1 binding vote and -1 vote, so we are one binding
> +1 short.
> There is still some comments from Roman, but I think there is always some
> room for improvement and again there is no  -1 vote.
> 
> I would like to known if any mentors see a problem with this approach. I
> don't want to step on anybody's toes, but would like to push the release
> forward.
> 
> Greetings,
> Pepijn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Pepijn Noltes <pepijnnoltes@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> Hi Roman,
>> 
>> Could you have a look at the comments of Alexander? I known I'm pushing a
>> bit, but we are hoping to get the release ready :).
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Alexander Broekhuis <
>> a.broekhuis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Roman,
>>> 
>>> See my remarks inline below. I hope this gives you enough confidence to
>>> sign this release off.
>>> 
>>> 2014/1/24 Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@apache.org>
>>> 
>>>> I know that some of the items are nits, but if we are to
>>>> re-cut an RC for Boost reasons -- I'd suggest we may
>>>> as well take care of them
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The way I read [2], there is no need to add anything to the notice file at
>>> all. All third party sources we use have a header with the respective
>>> license information. At [2] it is even explicitly mentioned not to add
>>> anything unless legally required.
>>> 
>>> "Do not add anything to NOTICE which is not legally required."
>>> 
>>> So I don't see a reason why a new release is needed for Boost.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> The checksum has been created with the command mentioned on the Apache
>>>>> Signing Releases page [1]. I don't see what is wrong with this.
>>>> 
>>>> There was an old discussion on that some time ago. Basically
>>>> the problem boils down to a fact that I can't verify it with shasum(1)
>>>> and thus can't sign off on it.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> This was indeed an old discussion, but there has never been reached a
>>> consensus, and as stated before, I've explicitly used the method described
>>> on the Apache pages, which uses the gpg tooling to verify a checksum.
>>> Instead of using shasum, you can simply use gpg --print-md "filename".
>>> 
>>> If all I do is follow the official Apache document then what am I doing
>>> wrong?
>>> 
>>> I've had some discussion with Marcel on this topic as well, and in some
>>> other project where Marcel is involved, they use a script to compare the
>>> checksums. A similar solution might be implemented for Celix as well, I
>>> don't mind adding this to the backlog.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>   * it would be nice to have version embedded into the name of the
>>> top
>>>>>>     level dir inside of the tarball
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have decided to leave it out since else there would always be an
>>> issue
>>>>> with the BUILDING instructions and the default directory. This was a
>>>> remark
>>>>> by someone on the first (0.0.1) release where we did have the version
>>> in
>>>>> the top-level directory.
>>>> 
>>>> Hm. I'm just curious -- was there a thread on this one?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> This was a remark made by Marcel on our first release. See [3] for his
>>> message/the release thread.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>   * boost license is missing in NOTICES
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why should the boost license be in the NOTICES file? There have been
a
>>>> lot
>>>>> of discussions on this file, and my understanding always has been that
>>>> if a
>>>>> license is in a header it is not needed to add it to the NOTICES file.
>>>> 
>>>> I honestly don't recall this. Care to point a thread?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I can't find the thread, but [2] gives a good explanation.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Roman.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1]: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing#sha-checksum
>>> [2]: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
>>> [3]: http://incubator.markmail.org/thread/ot7cwepmcusdblqs
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Met vriendelijke groet,
>>> 
>>> Alexander Broekhuis
>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message