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: [VOTE] - Ratify Tuscany PPMC vote to release SDO for Java M2 artifacts
Date Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:59:23 GMT
On 10/25/06, kelvin goodson <kelvingoodson@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Tuscany PPMC has voted to release the SDO for Java API implementation as
> part of the M2 release.
> In accordance with Incubator release procedures we are asking the Incubator
> PMC to
> approve this release.

reviewing http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/RC5a/
(since the email doesn't include the explicit reference)

major
-------

no major issues

there are a few minor questions that need clearing up in 'important'
below. i'd be happy to see these issues resolved in the source without
recutting the release provided that the provinance of these files is
ok. (running RAT will give exact filenames.)

important
-----------
i can't find a tag in subversion. please take a tag next time (or
explain your tag naming system if i've missed it).

the files in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/sample/src/main/resources/
appear to be missing license headers. please conform that this is
either an oversight or that they are generated.

the status file is worrying: there are two CCLAs pending. please
confirm that this is either an oversight or that these CCLAs are not
pertinent to this material.

MANIFESTs are missing Implementation-Vendor-Id (yes, i know it's a
PITA and the various jarspecifications are a mess). best to add it if
you can do so without too much pain.

files in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/impl/model/
are missing license headers. please confirm that this was an oversight
or provide a reason why they don't need them.

a few files in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/impl/src/test/resources/
are missing license headers. please confirm that this was an oversight
or provide a reason why they don't need them.

stylistic
--------

the download directories are a bit of a hotch-potch. the binary
unpacks to the current directory, sample unpacks to samples, sdo impl
unpacks to sdo, sdo api to sdo-api. it's best to have a naming plan
and stick to it. releases which unpack to the current directory
irritate me (and many other users). i prefer the unpack to directories
named after the release (this makes it easier to manage multiple
releases of the same product).

- robert

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


Mime
View raw message