Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 6816 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2006 12:09:33 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Jul 2006 12:09:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 83966 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jul 2006 12:09:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 83816 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jul 2006 12:09:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 83784 invoked by uid 99); 31 Jul 2006 12:09:24 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:09:24 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.168 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.168] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.168) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:09:23 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u40so711230ugc for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:09:02 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ls6CfE2/Ww/6yUwSqk66GS+nCBi4WP6bIdkcftqdv5JXBlp1Cyd2NnkjVStoXR0GpN7Rlnx3R3qZ09V/EH48S1RS7Ny2hr9dSF+zhh9DMnrnNpmQWm4l0xtX/K+VglgoHK32Uy4hpXhHBXVVILwMHdbiv02rnvPxzpnKy2scnHI= Received: by 10.67.100.17 with SMTP id c17mr2403030ugm; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.20.7 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:09:02 +0100 From: "robert burrell donkin" To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Abdera 0.1.0 Release Candidate (please review) In-Reply-To: <7edfeeef0607301739q15bc3233rb10095119e99a77a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <44C7DA68.6030607@gmail.com> <7edfeeef0607301739q15bc3233rb10095119e99a77a@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 7/31/06, Garrett Rooney wrote: > On 7/30/06, robert burrell donkin wrote: > > * 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