incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bryant Luk <bryant....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Wink 1.0
Date Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:45:27 GMT
Hi Leo,

Thanks for taking a look.  Some comments in-line:

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Leo Simons <mail@leosimons.com> wrote:
> Yo. Looking pretty cool! Sorry, but, few tidbits inline...
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas L Gallardo
> <nlgallar@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> The Wink community voted on and approved the release of Apache Wink 1.0. We
>> would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this
>> release.
>>
>> Podling vote thread:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/wink-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg02060.html
>>
>> The Maven staging area is at:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/
>
> You're not going to get a +1 from me on all those artifacts - its way
> too much work for me to look through all of them [1]. I looked just at
> the distributions...
>
>> The distributions are in:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/org/apache/wink/apache-wink/1.0-incubating/
>
> The source release has a LICENSE and a NOTICE file that indicates it
> contains a bunch of stuff it does not actually contain. AFAICS it
> should simply have a LICENSE that is just the Apache License and a
> NOTICE file that has just our standard license header.

I think you're suggesting a different LICENSE/NOTICE for source versus
binary distributions.  I did some random checking looking at some
source versus binary Apache project distributions (incubator and
non-incubator) and as far as I can tell, they kept their same LICENSE
and NOTICE files even though they were not re-distributing the
dependency binaries in the source archive.

Don't mean to say we should just follow the crowd, but I don't think
this is standard practice unless another thread has a viewpoint on
this.

> The NOTICE file for the binary release should include only those
> notices that are actually required by the included library
> dependencies, and they should reproduce the exact text of those
> notices. For example, the slf4j notice line should not be there since
> slf4j does not require it.

I see varying degrees of attribution to slf4j in other Apache
(incubating and non-incubating) projects (some have none, some have a
line).  The slf4j line was kept from the Wink 0.1 release.  IMHO, this
is not a release blocker, but we can remove it in a future release if
it is the right thing to do.

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

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


Mime
View raw message