incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Santiago Gala <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Shindig Incubator 1.0
Date Sat, 23 May 2009 20:50:09 GMT
El sáb, 23-05-2009 a las 21:02 +0200, Leo Simons escribió:
> On May 21, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> > I am a mentor for Shindig, but I am aware of a weaknesses of mine as a
> > mentor is that I'm not that knowledgeable or experienced with the
> > release process at Apache, and therefore have not followed this thread
> > in detail, which I really should have.
> >
> > It seems that this release is stalled, but I am not entirely sure how,
> > and want to understand this better.
> Sebb has raised some valid concerns; some were addressed, some are  
> left; shindig has to address those concerns, but up new artifacts, and  
> then ask for another vote.
> > The thing that confuses me is that, as I understand it, Shindig is  
> > just
> > using Maven to produce its artefacts (binary jars as a convenience to
> > users). If that is the case, surely those artefacts are structured in
> > the same way as other Maven based releases from other projects?
> The apache-hosted maven-based projects I've checked (including maven  
> itself!) only officially release source archives. As Jason pointed  
> out, this is now pretty easy to do in accordance with policy, thanks  
> to some plugin work David did quite a while ago.
> To release binary archives that embed third-party dependencies is more  
> work. The LICENSE and NOTICE file have to have details about  
> dependencies, if those dependencies are in the binary distributions.  
> With maven, automatic resolution of transitive dependencies is  
> possible, which shindig relies on. However, there is not automatic  
> resolution of licensing details, which makes crossing the legal t's  
> and dotting the legal i's quite a chore.
> > Is it that we have identified a new issue that actually affects  
> > _all_ Maven based releases, not just Shindig?
> No not necessarily. You can use maven to produce binary releases that  
> have all the required legal details inside of them; it just isn't  
> automatically taken care of.

Not that I want to mud the waters even more, but how does the word
"binary" vs source affects the code that is both binary and source?
Substantial parts of shindig are ecmascript and php. In fact a release
of shindig-php that does not contain *any* binary that is not source at
the same time is a very realistic thought.

Would this hypothetical release be considered source or binary? I ask
because it is clear that there are different requirements to both. Or
maybe I just diidn't understood anything at all... :)


> > If so, how can we both unblock the Shindig release
> Shindig can choose to either do the work to get the legal bits and  
> pieces related to their dependencies sorted out and produce binary  
> releases that follow the rules, or they can opt to do a source-only  
> release.
> > and also get this issue resolved in such a way as it covers all  
> > Maven based projects?
> To solve this issue in a way that covers all maven-based projects  
> requires making sure that all required legal details and notices are  
> put inside the maven repositories in a machine-processable manner, for  
> all artifacts, and then modifying a maven plugin or two to aggregate  
> those details automagically, and then to make use of that plugin  
> everywhere. In other words, that's a few months of work at the least :-)
> cheers,
> - Leo

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message