incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:28:52 GMT

On Aug 21, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej <> wrote:
>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
> When the option to be "fair" exists, "fair" is great!
> With regards to my own vote, I'm going to try to apply Jukka's criteria on
> "rights":
>    Personally I'm fine with things like missing license headers or partially
>    incomplete license metadata (which sounds like is the case here), as long
>    as those are just omissions that don't fundamentally affect our rights (or
>    those of downstream users) to distribute the releases and as long as
>    there's a commitment to fix such issues in time for the next release.
> Extraneous information in the NOTICE file imposes a burden on some downstream
> distributors and consumers.  Thee is almost certainly room for improvement in
> the AOO NOTICE file, and we have made some progress towards a consensus on
> exactly what ought to be in NOTICE since the first incubating release of AOO
> -- though there is also considerable room for improvement in the ASF
> documentation with regards to NOTICE.  :)
> However, is there anything about the NOTICE file in this AOO release candidate
> which affects _rights_, either our own or those of downstream users?  I've
> looked through the file, and if that's the case, I don't see it.  If sebb
> thinks a respin is merited, that's his call, and his review is a welcome
> contribution.  However, considering how much effort it takes to spin up an AOO
> release, the good faith and substantial effort invested by the podling in
> assembling the NOTICE file in the first place, and the good record of the AOO
> podling in incorporating suggestions, my opinion is that a promise to
> incorporate any NOTICE revisions into trunk suffices and that a new RC is not
> required.


> In contrast, I am more concerned about extra files that were apparently
> inadvertently committed and were not caught by either the primary mechanism of
> PPMC members watching the commits list

Checking three of these jars - there were all part of the initial svn commit - r1162288 -
Initial import of the old OOo hg repository tip revision.

> or by the last line of defense of
> running a RAT report prior to rolling the release.  If files which are
> incompatible with our licensing end up in a distribution, that has the
> potential to affect _rights_.  And what with AOO's history, there is a big
> target painted on the project and there is a conspicuous need to maintain
> absolute control over what ends up in releases.

Thanks for your answer to Jürgen and your +1 to release.

> It looks like the late audit has revealed that those files are OK, but it
> feels like we might have dodged a bullet.

Yes, but the shotgun was loaded with salt, so it just stings a little ;-)


> Marvin Humphrey
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message