incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject [VOTE] Apache Incubator CXF 2.0-M1 Release (RC 3)
Date Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:00:33 GMT
Doh! didn't check reply to before sending

(sorry for the duplicate post daniel)


On 12/7/06, Daniel Kulp <daniel.kulp@iona.com> 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/apach
> >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 don't check the jars in there, just in here :-)

AIUI there are historic quality issues with the maven repository. FWIW
i hope that one day we'll move to automatic verification using a
commit hook in subversion but there code that needs to be written
before that can happen

> 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?

it's long standing policy: all distributed artifacts must contain
LICENSE and NOTICE files (plus disclaimer for podlings).

RAT doesn't do jars and spidering yet so these need to be checked
manually. so mistakes happen. i generally only manually check a
sample. (believe it or not, i do have better things to do on a rainy
thursday than check every jar in a servicemix release)

> > 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?

it's the actual artifacts themselves: they should contain the full
project name (for example apache-ant). AIUI this gives the project
some trademark leverage over bogus jars.

- robert

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


Mime
View raw message