geronimo-xbean-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release XBean 2.8
Date Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:14:20 GMT

On Dec 18, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

> On 12/18/06, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 18, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>
>> > I'm starting a vote to release XBean 2.8.
>> > There has not been much changes since 2.7, but a few
>> > bugs fixed, and the addition of the xbean-finder module.
>> > Anyway, the bugs are important enough to deserver a new
>> > release (the generated schemas can not be validated).
>> >
>> > [ ] +1 Start xbean 2.8 release process
>> > [ ] +/- 0
>> > [ ] -1 Don't release xbean 2.8 now
>> >
>> > Here's my +1.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by "release process".
>
> Running "mvn release:prepare release:perform" ;)
>
>> But here are the issues
>> which look like they would block a release:
>>
>> 1. NOTICE files do not conform to current ASF standards
>
> What do you mean exactly ?
> They have the same content that the ones I've always seen.
> Could you point me to a better template for these ?

Hi Guillaume,

Yes, they've changed slightly... Source files no longer contain a  
copyright statement. Copyright is now in the notice file. Here's a  
pointer to the current "standards" -- http://www.apache.org/legal/src- 
headers.html

Notice files take the following form:

     Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
     Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation

     This product includes software developed at
     The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).

I don't see any external projects being included in xbean binaries.  
So, it would seem that's the only content that the NOTICE files would  
require.

I took a peak at the generated jar files. Looks like license/notice  
files are missing from at least the following jar file:

xbean-naming

Genesis will automatically check for these during a build. Dain (I  
think) had a one line command to scan for missing notice/license  
files, but I can't remember how it went...

>
>> 2. The following files either do not contain a valid license header
>> (not all files will require one, but many of these need one) or have
>> an out-of-date license header (all need to be updated).
>
> Thanks. I'll fix these asap.
> You run rat for that, right ?

Yes, but rat doesn't identify old-style license headers. For these,  
I've found the following grep command to be useful:

grep -RL --include=*.java "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation  
(ASF)" *

--kevan



Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message