felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Karl Pauls" <karlpa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Felix 1.0.0 subprojects release
Date Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:00:07 GMT
On 7/15/07, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 15 July 2007 07:56, Karl Pauls wrote:
> > So how do we proceed from here? I'd personally like to pause the vote
> > and update the source release artifacts to include the LICENSE and
> > NOTICE files in the root. Would that be a way for you to change your
> > vote?
>
> Yes, if the LICENSE and NOTICE is in root for the Source tarball, you have my
> +1.

Great. I'm working on the update. Expect the vote to continue soonish.

regards,

Karl

> For the Maven artifact; As I mentioned, it is still an open item on where this
> should really be. On one side is the hard liners, which basically says that
> Apache is about Open Source, and only source releases should be the ASF's
> legal responsibility. Then the pragmatic bunch (majority) thinks that
> binaries are absolutely a requirement, otherwise people won't use ASF's
> projects, and we need a legal framework (procedures, recommendations,
> archiving, ++) for binaries that is as good as the source ones. That is
> essentially agreed upon for some time already. In this context, a binary
> release refers to the produced artifacts wrapped in a tarball with
> LICENSE/NOTICE and docs.
>
> Recently (a year or two) there are discussions on how should Maven artifacts
> be handled. Now you can start splitting the binary bunch in smaller
> undefinable camps.
> There are three main issues; The license requirements, the archiving
> requirements and the 'oversight' requirements.
>
> For long, Maven artifacts were not official, but recently there is
> a /dist/maven-repository and according to "infrastructure team" everything
> under /dist is official and archived. Not sure whether this is still true,
> since /dist/maven-repository redirects to
> http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository/, which is the
> upload area, but I think infra is now archiving this.
>
> "Oversight" is slightly diffuse, but refers to the "many eyeballs" concept,
> and is essentially a human process. Maven makes it very easy to make
> the "release" if it wasn't for the oversight issue. And many people has
> requested Maven community to directly support the ASF manual processes in the
> release process in Maven, including call for VOTE, providing references to
> the PMC vote, and so on. That is still far away.
>
> License requirements is mostly about the many licenses saying "prominent
> place" to refer to where the license must be. IMHO, it should be root folder
> of artifact. But I think people has objected due to the nature of Maven jars
> are active artifacts, and should not be polluted by this. META-INF is
> currently the minimum requirement, and I am still not sure whether Maven
> artifacts are official release artifacts of ASF.
>
>
> I hope that is enough preaching in one go.
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>


-- 
Karl Pauls
karlpauls@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message