incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gav..." <ga...@16degrees.com.au>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
Date Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:09:18 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eddie Epstein [mailto:eaepstein@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, 24 January 2010 11:52 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release UIMA 2.3.0-rc9
> 
> Hi, sure.
> The unapproved licenses for each package are:
> 
> Linux source - 17 unknown:
>   7 - regression and sample test data
>   6 - auto generated files (gnumake and JNI header)
>   1 - NOTICE file for binary package (with suffix)
>   1 - README file for binary package (with suffix)
>   1 - doxygen html template
>   1 - gdb init file for testing
> 
> Windows source - 46 unknown:
>   35 - Microsoft devenv build control files (vcproj and sln)
>   7 - regression and sample test data
>   1 - NOTICE file for binary package (with suffix)
>   1 - README file for binary package (with suffix)
>   1 - doxygen html template
>   1 - JNI auto gen header
> 
> Linux 32-bit and 64-bit binary - 377 unknown for each
>   259 - doxygen output files
>   108 - ICU redistributable headers
>   7 - xercesc redistributable headers
>   1 - APR redistributable header
>   1 - sample test data
>   1 - gdb init file
> 
> Windows binary - 462 unknown
>   333 - doxygen output files
>   104 - ICU redistributable headers
>   13 - Microsoft devenv build files (vcporj and sln)
>   10 - xercesc redistributable headers
>   1 - APR redistributable header
>   1 - sample test data
> 

Although it doesn’t do any harm, performing RAT reports on generated files
(currently)
is not strictly necessary.

Look at:

http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-license-head
ers

which states:

"All source capable of copyright should contain license header. Easiest way
to comply is to ensure that every human readable file has the header. Note
that source includes not just the source code compiled into the final
product but also all other resources such as style sheets, test code and
resources, build files and documentation source. When in doubt, add a
header."

and...

"The issue of licenses on generated documentation is a little controversial.
Copyright may not subsist in a document which is generated by an
transformation from an original. In which case, the license header may be
unnecessary. License headers should always be present in the original. Where
it is reasonable to do so, the templates should also add the license header
to the generated documents."

So, what you have done is akin to the second paragraph. What you have not
done is produce a RAT report on your original untouched source files in svn.
This is akin to paragraph one above and is what you should really be
providing. Not only that, the results of the RAT reports should end up being
'zero' unknown/unapproved files. This can always be achieved, by either
adding the headers as necessary, or by excluding the relevant files from the
report. RAT is capable of excluding files by using an exclusion file kept in
svn which RAT can then use. An example of 'zero' being achieved is at
http://ci.apache.org/projects/log4php/rat-output.html.

I took the liberty of using Buildbot to produce RAT reports for your trunk,
uimacpp-2.3.0-09 tag and uima-2.3.0 release branch, results were:

Trunk - 51 Unknown Licenses -
http://ci.apache.org/projects/uima/rat-output.html 

uimacpp-2.3.0-09 Tag - 51 Unknown Licenses -
http://ci.apache.org/projects/uima/tags/uimacpp-2.3.0-09/rat-output.html 

uimacpp-2.3.0 Branch - 51 Unknown Licenses -
http://ci.apache.org/projects/uima/branches/uimacpp-2.3.0/rat-output.html 

All the same results which shows consistency which is good.

Going through those source files we have:

.buildbot-sourcedata - created by buildbot and can be excluded.
NOTICE.* - can be excluded
README.* - can be excluded
createRelease.txt - can be excluded
docs/doxyheader.html - optional
**/*.vcproj - Don't see why these can't have headers
**.*.asc - can be excluded

So, just by applying either headers or exclusion list for the above will
reduce the list to just a couple. Take a look at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/forrest/trunk/etc/rat-avoid.txt for a good
example of an exclusion file that RAT can use. If you create one, let me
know and I'll reconfigure the buildbot to use it, or let you know how you
can use it in your own manual runs.

Note that your current four RAT reports can be brought down to 'zero' just
by creating an exclusion list as you are indicating that all of the those
files are to be excluded.

After saying all of the above, I am not voting on the release, just
providing RAT report advice and haven’t the time currently to check the rest
of the release.
Having licenses in place for all source files (not generated) and/or
exclusions I should think would be a requirement for release approval, I'd
prefer others to clarify that though.

Good luck.

Gav...


> Thanks for digging into the UIMA release!
> Eddie
> 
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jta@bristowhill.com>
> wrote:
> > Eddie Epstein wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Jean,
> >>
> >> Just noting that uimacpp does include rat reports, just poorly named
> :(
> >>
> >> In
> >> http://people.apache.org/~schor/uima-release-candidates/2.3.0-
> RC9/uimacpp/
> >> are 5 xxx-report.txt files that correspond to the 5 uimacpp download
> >> packages
> >> in the release.
> >>
> >> And although not identical to the previous release, uimacpp has only
> minor
> >> changes to existing components.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Eddie
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification, Eddie!
> >
> > Since you're indicating that there were some minor changes, I went
> ahead and
> > took a look at the uimacpp rat reports. All files have  "Unknown
> Licenses"
> > reported, and some files have hundreds. Since uimacpp was already
> approved
> > for release before, I'm sure that all is in order, but could you just
> > refresh our memory about those unknown license messages? I bet they
> might
> > have to do with auto-generated files, but it would be good to
> confirm.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > -jean
> >
> >> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Jean T. Anderson
> <jta@bristowhill.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> since I reviewed the earliest uima releases I went ahead and
> reviewed
> >>> this
> >>> one.
> >>>
> >>> I did not take the time to unpack files and examine them because I
> was
> >>> convinced by early release rounds that the UIMA project knows how
> to do
> >>> this
> >>> reliably.
> >>>
> >>> I did focus on the rat reports that were included and on the email
> >>> thread.
> >>> --I encountered only one minor confusion: uimacpp did not include a
> rat
> >>> report, but Marshall's post to the podling vote thread mentioned
> that
> >>> uimacpp is identical to the previous release. [1] Nothing needs to
> be
> >>> done
> >>> here, Marshall, I'm just noting this in case any other mentors
> start
> >>> reviewing this.
> >>>
> >>> based on my review I give this release a +1.
> >>>
> >>> -jean
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/osrpk5skilchagi6
> >>>
> >>> Jukka Zitting wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please cast your vote!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> My +1 from uima-dev@ stands here as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Others, please review and vote! The release is pretty complex so
> it's
> >>>> a bit of work to review it, but it would be great if at least two
> >>>> other IPMC members could spare some time on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> BR,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jukka Zitting
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >> 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
> >
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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