incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Abdera 0.1.0 Release Candidate (please review)
Date Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:09:02 GMT
On 7/31/06, Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> On 7/30/06, robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >  * the MANIFEST files should comply with the various java standards on
> > this matter. these are really a long way away so i can't list just a
> > few corrections. creating complient releases should be included in the
> > release management guide very soon but for now see
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases/prepare.html#checkjarmanifest
>
> This is one of those areas I'm pretty ignorant on, but I'll try and
> take a look if nobody beats me to it.

this area is a PITA since there are multiple specifications and
recommendations which aren't particularly consistent :-/

> > important notes
> >  * there are no license or notice files in the jars distributed in the
> > binary. though this is not necessarily a blocking issue, these
> > artifacts cannot be distributed as raw jars without them. therefore
> > these jars cannot be distributed through maven. if you want to do
> > this, you must include LICENSE and NOTICE files in the jars.
>
> This does seem like something we should fix, I'll look into it soon.
>
> > blocking issues
> >  * copyright headers missing from too many source files (pom.xmls,
> > build.xmls, numerous xml and xslt files, docs/*.html). not all of
> > these files will be substantial enough for copyright to exist in them
> > but IMHO there are so many that this should be addressed before
> > releasing.
> >
> > IMO the license headers should be addressed before this release
>
> I've added copyright headers to the docs, pom files, build.xml, and a
> few java files that slipped in without them.  So far I haven't added
> them to the various .xml files in the test suites since, well, the
> average feed you parse off of the net doesn't have a big honking
> comment at the top, so it seems like we'd be deviating a bit from what
> we intend to test.  There are numerous files in numerous ASF projects
> that don't contain embedded licenses (images, for example), I'm not
> sure if this fits the same category, but I suspect it might.

i suspect so too but IANAL

> Similarly I haven't added them to the properties files we parse at
> runtime, since it seems silly to increase the size of the file by more
> than an order of magnitude if all that data is just going to be run
> over by the parser when it's looking for the data it needs.

small property files may not be copyrightable and may not need a
license header but this needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis

> Haven't merged this into the release branch yet, but it'll happen
> before the release is rerolled.  I'd also be curious what people think
> about the test case xml files issue.

the issue of test files is interesting and needs clarifying on legal discuss

(i'll resist the temptation to speculation)

since this is a corner case, i don't see no headers in small property
files and xml used for testing to be an serious enough to block an
incubator release whilst the policy is qualified.

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message