forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Blocking Issues
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:33:02 GMT
2009/11/24 David Crossley <crossley@apache.org>:
> 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 on
>> >> 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
;-)

> 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.

Ross

Mime
View raw message