incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Diephouse <dan.diepho...@mulesource.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)
Date Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:12:22 GMT
I removed the empty sources jar and tagged the release:

Dan Diephouse wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>> On 31/03/2008, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  
>>>     
>>
>> -1: There are MD5 and SHA1 digests in the directory, but the archives
>> have no signatures.
>>
>>   
> OK, I will fix this.
>>>  Maven Repository: http://people.apache.org/~dandiep/abdera-take6/
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> -0: The abdera-bundle-0.4.0-incubating-sources.jar does not appear to
>> have any content - only the META-INF directory is present. Is that
>> correct?
>>   
> This is just a by-product of Maven. We can delete it.
>> -1: The NOTICE files in that jar (and others) contains far too much.
>> The NOTICE file is for required attribtions ONLY (e.g. as per an 
>> About box)
>> There's really no need to repeat ASF for each project used by Abdera.
>>   
> Having too much information in the NOTICE files is not a crime. The 
> Maven remote-resources plugin aggregates all this stuff for us so we 
> never miss any notice that we need to put in.
>> -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 3rd party
>> licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party licences.
>> Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain copies of
>> the AL for every ASF product.
>>   
> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other 
> licenses? These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other 
> ASF projects.
>
> Re: the ASL license in lib/ - once again having too much information 
> is not a crime. This is a service to uesrs so they know where the 
> libraries came from.
>> -1: RAT report says:
>>
>> 99 Unknown Licenses
>>
>> Some of these are trivial, but most require an AL header.
>>   
> Not true - there is not consensus that properties/xml files need to 
> have headers. All the Java source code files have headers. If there 
> are specific files that you feel should have a license that don't 
> please list them and explain why. I'm not saying that we didn't miss 
> something, but I am saying that the ones that I know about don't 
> necessarily require a header.
>> What is the SVN tag that corresponds with the archives?
>>
>>   
> the branch will be tagged once its released.
>
> Dan
>


-- 
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com 


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


Mime
View raw message