incubator-kato-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stuart Monteith <>
Subject Re: Apache Kato release - comments please
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:01:29 GMT
     In view of us going through a staged release, is this process 
somewhere? It would be nice to see what lies ahead in order for us to 
This may be important if we needed to invoke some IBM processes, which 
can take


Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM, ant elder<>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Stuart Monteith<>  wrote:
> <snip>
> (looks like i'm going to be snowed under over the next week with
> coursework so i'm not going to be very active)
>>  From the ASF release perspective it actually looks pretty good to me,
>> never the less I'm sure it would be educational to try out the
>> multi-stage audit.
>> Here's a few things i found looking at the artifacts:
>> - the comment box made from equals characters at the top of the NOTICE
>> files is not meant to be included, i know lots of other projects do
>> but it was just from misinterpreting an example NOTICE file.
>> - the commons-lang-2.0.jar in is
>> actually using the Apache License version 1.1. If you really need
>> version 2.0 of commons-lang then you'd need to include AL 1.1 in the
>> Kato LICENSE file, but there are newer releases of commons-lang using
>> AL 2.0 you could use.
>> - there's a few empty readme.html and README.txt files in most of the artifacts.
> this is the build process stage: pretty painless. once these are
> fixed, then ant could ask on the list for IPMC volunteers to double
> check his work.
> the other stages are licensing and source audits.
> licensing audit should be simple in this case but it takes a while for
> licenses to be categorised so advice should be sort any dependencies
> which aren't covered as early as possible. this is good general advice
> - when adding new dependencies, check whether they have been
> categorised and  - if not - get that started immediately.
> source audit involves checking that headers are ok and foreign source
> correctly credited. you can do this by running RAT against the plain
> source. i expect this should be relatively painless in this case.
> - robert

Stuart Monteith

View raw message