directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Emmanuel Lecharny" <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0
Date Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:03:09 GMT
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:27 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> -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.

We are voting on the Roadmap version (cf JIRA). As soon as all the
issues are closed, we can  vote. If every modification and every bug
is filled into JIRA, this is the way to go.

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.
No, this is not a referendum. I really think that a project should be
JIRA driven, and not SVN driven. That does not make a lot of sense to
vote for a SVN IMHO, because there are so much little changes which
could be committed after a vote... Like some svn:ignore tags, or
whatever cosmetic fixes.

At least, this is the way we work at Directory, and this is now 3
years and many votes we have proceeded this way.

I'm sure that other projects prefer some other 'algorithm', but I'm
pretty confident that we are not completly off the track following
JIRA's roadmap.


> So, I'll guess randomly :-) that this is intended to be a vote on
> directory/studio/trunk rev 641069.

No, this will be a vote on Studio 1.1.0 as described in JIRA roadmap
for this project.

>
> 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
> (http://www.apache.org/).
> ----------
> 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.

This is something we should clearly address before releasing.
Pierre-Arnaud, Stefan ?


> Since this doesn't specify an expected build method I have to assume it uses
> the only one I know about... maven.

Felix, Pierre-Arnaud and Stefan spent more than one month creating a
Maven build for this project, with a lot of sweat and blood... So yes,
we have a maven build for Studio now !

In this case this is not suitable for
> release since it has a snapshot parent pom:
>
>
>   <parent>
>     <groupId>org.apache.directory.project</groupId>
>     <artifactId>project</artifactId>
>     <version>10-SNAPSHOT</version>
>   </parent>
>
> I'm also slightly worried about the SNAPSHOT versions in the properties in
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/directory/studio/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup.
> They might get changed to something that aren't snapshots during the actual
> release process but I have no way to know that.

In order to release, we usually create a freezed branch, and we setup
all the versions in this branch. As soon as the vote is closed, then
it becomes the release. I think the process is defined on our wiki
(http://directory.apache.org/studio/releasing-a-new-version.html), but
this may need some twiking...

>
> It's also extremely desirable to lock down all the maven plugins with
> explicit versions.

I haven't looked at the pom.xml files, but if there is no dependency
manager, we must add one.

>
> 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.

We have to check the lack of legal files.

>
> sorry...

Don't. Those are important matters, and we have to clean the place
now, otherwise, we will carry those guys for another 6 months period
...


Thanks David !

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel L├ęcharny
www.iktek.com

Mime
View raw message