forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Williams <>
Subject Re: Blocking Issues
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:21:07 GMT
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Ross Gardler <> wrote:
> 2009/11/24 David Crossley <>:
>> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> David Crossley wrote:
>>> > Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> >> David Crossley wrote:
>>> >> > Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> >> >> Tim Williams wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > FOR-855 verify the license situation prior to each release
>>> >> >> > - housekeeping
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I believe Davids work with RAT fixes this issue.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > No it does not. There is much more to the job that that.
>>> >>
>>> >> I meant that running RAT shows all licence headers are in place. we
>>> >> still need to do the housekeeping work that is normal due diligence
>>> >> a release, of course.
>>> >
>>> > I meant that FOR-855 has much more than just the license header situation.
>>> > I have been working on it steadily for a long time now, and there is more
>>> > to do.
>>> OK, I should have reviewed the issue. I have no opinion on whether
>>> this is a blocker or not. I assumed that previous releases were
>>> legally sound (which I believe they were since we voted them through).
>> We have cut corners on previous releases. Our top-level LICENSE.txt file
>> is not in line with agreed ASF best practice. It is supposed to display
>> relevant licenses for supporting products.
> Hmm.... not good.
> I wonder if this has occured as things have crept into plugins.
> Perhaps each plugin should have a licence.txt file and the build
> system should merge them together at build time.
>> Also all supporting product licenses need to be systematically reviewed.
>> Since the last release some things have been haphazardly added to SVN.
>> Also last time we could easily have missed some.
> I've tried to review every commit for such things. I hope others have
> been doing the same to catch the ones I miss. I'm pretty sure that a
> review of licences is already in the release workflow - if not it
> should be, for the reasons you give.
>>> Tim indicated that this was "housekeeping" which I took to mean the
>>> normal due diligence on a release.
>> Yes, but i marked it as Blocker (same process as i did for the previous
>> releases) because a release should not be rolled until the situation is
>> suitable.
> I'm not saying it is not a blocker, I'm agreeing it is part of the
> required housekeeping of a release. In other words we are in agreement
> ;-)

Sorry, I might have inadvertently caused this confusion with my
imprecise wording, "housekeeping," which seems to have unintentionally
trivialized it.  I meant it as in "a necessary part of the release
process" as opposed to, say, a "bug".

>> I will plod along with FOR-855 and FOR-857 while other people
>> attend to other things.
> Thank you. I'd like to say I'd help, but to be honest I doubt I'll
> find the time.

I'm going out of town for a week for our Thanksgiving holidays here in
America, I'll pick this up when I get back...

View raw message