harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [vote] Declare r991881 as 6.0 milestone 3
Date Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:35:06 GMT
On 08/Sep/2010 10:31, sebb wrote:
> On 8 September 2010 08:52, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I have created signed source archives for revision r991881 of trunk and
>> made them available at:
>>
>>  http://people.apache.org/~hindessm/milestones/6.0M3/
> 
> The signing key has RSA key ID 8050390C.
> Although it is listed in public key servers, it is not listed in
>    http://www.apache.org/dist/harmony/KEYS
> which is where all keys are supposed to be obtained, according to:
>    http://harmony.apache.org/download.cgi#verify

yeah, I got a copy from SVN, but I see Mark has now updated the dist
copy too.

> ---
> 
> The top-level NOTICE file contains the following text:
> 
> ====
> The Apache Harmony Development Kit (HDK) contains a jar file from the
> Apache Derby Project for which the following notice applies:
> 
> Apache Derby
> Copyright 2004-2007 The Apache Software Foundation
> 
> This product includes software developed by
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> ====
> 
> I think this is superfluous, as the first few lines of the file should
> be enough to cover ASF code.

I don't follow your point here?  You think we should remove these lines,
specifically, but presumably keep in the required attributions following
that were passed through from our use of Derby, right?

> ---
> 
> The top-level LICENSE file refers to Apache Yoko (incubation).
> 
> Apache Yoko is no longer part of the incubator; it has been dissolved,
> and parts moved to Geronimo and CXF.
> So long as Harmony is using the Geronimo or CXF code, there should be
> no need to mention Yoko.
> I don't know what the procedure is if Harmony is using the Yoko code
> that remain in the Incubator; you should probably ask on
> Legal-discuss.

The code hasn't changed status, but I see there is a 1.1 release
available now so let's add a TODO to move up to that and pick it up from
Geronimo.

> ---
> 
> The following files don't have AL headers and are not listed in rat.excludes:
> 
> classlib/doc/overview.html
> classlib/modules/imageio/src/test/java/META-INF/services/javax.imageio.spi.CorrectProviderConfiguration
> classlib/modules/imageio/src/test/java/META-INF/services/javax.imageio.spi.IncorrectProviderConfiguration
> debian/README.Debian
> debian/patches/01-ignore.suffix.on.samsa.tools.diff
> debian/rules
> drlvm/make/classlib.override.file.patterns
> drlvm/vm/thread/src/doxyfile
> ibm-v4/make/classlib.override.file.patterns
> 
> Some of these files should probably have an AL header.

I'm quite comfortable that there is no ambiguity here, so nothing to be
concerned about.

Thanks for the review.

Regards,
Tim

>> Please test these artifacts and then vote for declaring these source
>> archives as 6.0 Milestone 3.
>>
>> This vote will be open for at least three days, or until all binding
>> votes have been cast (if earlier).
>>
>> If the vote is successful, binary builds from these artifacts will be
>> made available on the download page in addition to these source
>> archives.
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Mark.
>>
>>
>>
> 

Mime
View raw message