incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <daniel.k...@iona.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Incubator CXF 2.0-M1 Release (RC 3)
Date Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:53:52 GMT

Oh, forgot to say:
Very big thanks for taking the time to look at the release and commenting on 
it.   Those of you that are taking the time to look at stuff on projects you 
aren't a mentor on deserve a medal or something.   

VERY big thanks.
Dan


On Thursday 07 December 2006 17:48, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Thursday 07 December 2006 17:12, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > On 12/4/06, Dan Diephouse <dan@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > (NOTE: we just started labelling the different releases as v1/v2/etc.
> > > While this is our 3rd attempt, the above says v2 as we just started
> > > counting in the directory name...)
> > >
> > > We ask that you please vote to approve this release:
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 Release the binary as Apache Incubator CXF 2.0-M1
> > > [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments)
> >
> > +0 (hopefully soon to be +1 once the question below is resolved
> >
> > - questions -
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~blin/incubator-cxf-2.0-M1-v2/repository/org/apa
> >ch e/cxf/cxf-api/2.0-incubator-M1/cxf-api-2.0-incubator-M1-javadoc.jar is
> > missing license, disclaimer and notice files. it cannot therefore be
> > distributed. planning to distribute this jar from a repository? (if yes
> > then IMHO the release needs recutting, if no it's fine)
>
> This is a bug/restriction in Maven.   The javadoc jars that Maven produces
> doesn't have a way to put those files in them.   There is a fix pending to
> the javadoc plugin to fix that, but that's been held up by the maven team
> while they figure out a lot of other release issues.   Note that NONE of
> the javadoc jars in /x1/www/people.apache.org/repo/m2-incubating-repository
> have those.
>
> I would say for now we just remove that jar if it's needed.  However, how
> did the servicemix and other projects votes pass if it's a requirement?  Is
> this another "new requirement in the middle of a vote" thing?
>
> > - notes, comments and suggestions (not requirements) -
> >
> > MANIFEST's are a little empty. sun recommends quite a list in one
> > place or another (Extension-Name, Specification-Title,
> > Specification-Vendor, Specification-Version, Implementation-Vendor-Id,
> > Implementation-Title, Implementation-Vendor, Implementation-Version).
> > AIUI maven will generate these if asked.
>
> Noted.  Jira CXF-298.
>
> > once cxf graduates, remember that all artifacts need to be prefixed with
> > apache
>
> I'm curious about this.   If you look at the org/apache section of the
> maven2 repository (the public one where all the top level releases go),
> NOTHING is prefixed with apache.   The only one that is close is apacheds. 
>  How can it be a requirement of a TLP if only a single TLP does it?   Isn't
> having them in "org/apache" sufficient?
>
> > the source contains some xml specifications that are licensed under
> > non-open source licenses (copy and distribution only). it is proposed
> > (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html) that this is against policy.
> > there is still time to join in the discussions (on legal-discuss)
> > before this policy is adopted.
> >
> > perhaps add link to issue tracking system to the README get started
> > section
>
> Noted as JIRA  issue CXF-299 to fix for m2.   That said, a link is right on
> our home page which IS in the README.

-- 
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com

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


Mime
View raw message