incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar <uthaiyashan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve the M1 release of Apache Stonehenge
Date Thu, 14 May 2009 15:38:26 GMT
Hi Sebb,

Thank you very much for the quick review.

See my comments inline.

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:47 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14/05/2009, Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar <uthaiyashankar@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >  The Apache Stonehenge community has voted for the M1 release of Apache
> >  Stonehenge. We are now asking the approval from the Incubator PMC to
> publish
> >  the release.
> >
> >  Stonehenge is a set of example applications for Service Oriented
> >  Architecture that spans languages and platforms and demonstrates best
> >  practise and interoperability.
> >
> >  I have uploaded the Apache Stonehenge M1 release artifacts here:
> >  http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/release2/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eshankar/stonehenge/m1/release2/>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eshankar/stonehenge/m1/release2/>
>
> MD5 hashes and sigs OK, key is published to keyserver.
> Might be worth adding SHA1 hashes, but not essential.
>
> The contents of the binary zip and tar.gz files do not agree - the
> tar.gz archive does not include any of the dotnet files. Agreed it's
> more likely that .NET users will be using Zip, but the tgz archive
> should still contain the same contents.
>
> If you want to release a version without .NET, then IMO the archive
> should have a different name, and should be made available in all
> archive formats.
>
> IMO this needs to be fixed before a release.



We were thinking tgz will be only for *nix platform, so we didn't include
.NET binary. I'll include them in tgz as well.




>
>
> The source and binary files contain several PDF files, but these are
> not present in SVN.



These pdfs are generated from the wiki page (
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/STONEHENGE/Index). These pdfs are
included so that users can easily check the documents.. This detail is given
in the README file. If it is incorrect, we can remove it from the pack.



>
>
> There should be nothing in a source archive that does not come from
> SVN, and the contents of the source archive should contain "... the
> source materials needed to make changes to the software being
> released" - see http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html.
>
> I'm not sure how this need to be handled, but I don't think it can be
> left as is.
> Perhaps check on legal-discuss?
>
> >  The key is here:
> >  http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/release2/KEYS<http://people.apache.org/%7Eshankar/stonehenge/m1/release2/KEYS>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eshankar/stonehenge/m1/release2/KEYS>
> >
> >  RAT reports are here:
> >  http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/rat_report/release2/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eshankar/stonehenge/m1/rat_report/release2/>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eshankar/stonehenge/m1/rat_report/release2/>
>
> Where are the RAT reports for documentation


What do you mean by documentation? The site documents? They are generated
documents. Do we need RAT reports for them?



> and ruby?



Since Ruby is not ready and we are not releasing it with M1, we haven't
included RAT report for it.


>
>
> Most of the documentation files are missing AL headers.
>
> IMO this needs to be fixed before a release.


Is it site documents? If so, they are generated documents.



>
>
> >  This release is tagged at:
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stonehenge/tags/stonehenge_m1_incubator/
> >  (revision 772495)
>
> There need to be NOTICE and LICENSE files at the top-level of the tag.
>
> That will also make up for the missing N & L files in the
> documentation sub-tree.
>
> IMO this needs to be fixed before a release.



Sure, I'll fix them.



>
>
> Otherwise the N&L files seem OK.
>
> ==
>
> There does not seem to be any mention of the runtime system
> requirements on the web-site - the dependencies page says that there
> are no dependencies.
>
> This is not a release-blocker.


Different components have different dependency requirements, and that detail
is included in the installation guide (wiki page).



>
> ==
>
> There are a lot of .java, .xml  and .xsd files in SVN which don't have
> eol-style=native.
> This does not affect the release process in any way, but it should
> make cross-platform development easier if the properties were added.


Sure, I'll fix them in trunk.

Waiting for your reply..

Regards,
Shankar

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message