creadur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: Issue with orgapachecreadur-019 [WAS Re: Staging Apache Rat 0.9]
Date Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:37:00 GMT
On 26 March 2013 12:18, Robert Burrell Donkin
<> wrote:
> On 03/24/13 18:21, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> On 03/24/13 09:26, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>> On 03/23/13 11:39, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>>> Unless anyone jumps in sometime soon with an issue with the latest[1]
>>>> snapshot[2], following the guidelines[3] I hope to cut a 0.9 and upload
>>>> it to the staging repository.
>>> Hopefully we have lazy consensus on this. I hope to cut this later today.
>> After a little bit of a battle, I've pushed to staging[1]. Before I move
>> on to a VOTE, I hope to take a look using tentacles
> Unfortunately, I didn't check that the build for the apache-rat runnable
> uber-jar uses the maven-shade plugin :-( This means that the jar is missing
> NOTICE files for the Apache Licensed dependencies included within the jar.
> Apologies.
> All the dependences involved are Apache Software Foundation releases. Unless
> anyone spots something, I can't see this mistake posing a legal risk to
> downstream users.
> So, unless anyone jumps in, I'll just go ahead to fix the issue in trunk,
> delete the staging repository and then think about cut another candidate.
> I'm less sure about the best approach to numbering this new candidate. (In
> the past, I've cut release candidates first. Even with a staging repository
> this would have been sensible.) I lean towards 0.9.1, eliminating any risk
> that two signed 0.9 could escape into the wild.
> Opinions? Objections? Suggestions?

Not sure you need to worry about the files escaping from the staging
repo - that's part of the point, they are not yet published files.
So long as you delete the repo they won't be published.

> Robert

View raw message