directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot">
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Date Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:19:21 GMT
Hi David,

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:27 PM, David Jencks <>

> -1
> I'm all for releasing ADS 1.1.0 real soon now and have no problems with
> the code but...
> This doesn't say what we're voting on.  While I prefer voting on actual
> artifacts that I can check I'm ok with voting on a specific svn revision of
> a particular code base as long as its clearly specified together with the
> expected build method.  This vote looks to me like a referendum on "should
> we tag something and vote on the tag" rather than a vote on something
> specific.
> So, I'll guess randomly :-) that this is intended to be a vote
> on directory/studio/trunk rev 641069.

Stefan did not said it in his mail but we're not voting on the trunk but on
the 1.1.0 branch (

> First, and this is a blocker, there are no hardcoded LICENSE and NOTICE
> files in svn at the checkout root.  I'm happy to help with constructing
> appropriate files but since I don't know anything about studio I can't
> really do it myself.  If all the files in svn under the checkout root is asf
> licensed with no other restrictions (such as from being copied from
> somewhere else) then the AL goes in the LICENSE and the NOTICE file is the
> minimal:
> ----------
> Apache Directory Studio Copyright xxx-2008 The Apache Software Foundation
> This product includes software developed byThe Apache Software Foundation
> (
> If there is code from other sources please let me know what it is and I'll
> try to help figure out what we need to do.  I don't know the Studio
> inception year... this needs to replace the xxx.  Neither this LICENSE nor
> NOTICE file needs to reflect any dependencies of the project, just the stuff
> that is actually in svn.

I did not know having a LICENSE and NOTICE file was needed at the root of
the repository, I thought LICENSE and NOTICE were only needed in the
META-INF of the jars.
I followed the guideline explained here:
As it is said, all our distributions include LICENSE and NOTICE files in the
top directory.

> Since this doesn't specify an expected build method I have to assume it
> uses the only one I know about... maven.  In this case this is not suitable
> for release since it has a snapshot parent pom:
>   <parent>
>     <groupId></groupId>
>     <artifactId>project</artifactId>
>     <version>10-SNAPSHOT</version>
>   </parent>
> I'm also slightly worried about the SNAPSHOT versions in the properties
> in
>  They might get changed to something that aren't snapshots during the actual
> release process but I have no way to know that.
> It's also extremely desirable to lock down all the maven plugins with
> explicit versions.

In the 1.1.0 branch we want to release there are no SNAPSHOTs. The trunk is
currently the home for our next version (1.2, 1.3, etc.)

> Another thing I'm concerned about from a few days ago is that the maven
> build produces some kind of update site thingy that doesn't include legal
> files.  I disabled the check for legal files for it.  If this is something
> that might get into a maven repo this needs to be fixed.

This update site is not going to go into any maven repo. It's going to be
hosted on our website.
The update site has be used within Eclipse to install Apache Directory
Studio features.
NOTICE and LICENSE files are included in each feature package and the user
is asked to accept the Apache Software License when installing Studio.

Hope this helps,

View raw message