incubator-kato-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stuart Monteith <>
Subject Re: Second release candidate.
Date Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:43:41 GMT
Thanks for your comments Ant.

I thought we were going to go through a staged release process as 
suggested by Robert.
My expectation was that we would then audit the licenses and the source 
code, however that is done.
Only after having done that would a vote make sense, I thought.

I've changed the NOTICE file to appear like so:

     Apache Kato

     Copyright (c) 2008 - 2009 The Apache Software Foundation

     This product includes software developed by The Apache Software
     Foundation (

     Portions of Kato were originally developed by
     International Business Machines Corporation and are licensed to the 
Apache Software
     Foundation under the "Software Grant and Corporate Contribution
     License Agreement", informally known as the "IBM Kato CLA".

     Licensed Materials - Property of IBM
     "Restricted Materials of IBM"

     (c) Copyright IBM Corp. 2004, 2008 All Rights Reserved

     US Government Users Restricted Rights - Use, duplication or disclosure
     restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM Corp.

I'll address the issues with the README/RELEASE files as soon as.

I expect the next action will be for us to go through the next stages as 
suggested by
Robert, although we will need more detail as to what that actually 
means.. After that
RC3 can be created with the changes the audits have found, and a vote 
can be held.

Please let me know if this approach is reasonable.

Thanks again,

ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Stuart Monteith<>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>     I've put together another release candidate.
>> The tag is here:
>> The files are here:
>> I believe I've addressed all of the issues raised on the mailing list, with
>> the exception of the large dump that was generated when run under Harmony.
>> In addition, I've not put up the tomcat package, which is just demo code and
>> needs more explanation.
>> I've also expanded on the rat reports to report on the Windows and Linux
>> native packages separately.
>> i.e.:
>> rat-bin-linux.txt
>> rat-bin-windows.txt
>> rat-bin.txt
>> rat-src.txt
>> I also added the MD5 checksums too, as they apparently must be there.
>> There have been a number of changes. The TCK is available to run now, CJVMTI
>> has been fixed to address most of the issues found. I also added the
>> corrections suggested by Andrew Johnson (spelling errors, an other
>> indisputable points).
>> We are to go through the licensing and source audits.
>> Mentors - can you refresh my memory as to what actions we should take next?
> To release the artifacts they need to be voted on. The way thats
> commonly done is first having a vote on the poddling dev@ mailing list
> and then if that passes then hold a vote on the Incubator general@
> list. There must be vote on the general@ list and from the two votes
> there must be at least three +1s from IPMC members. Sometimes to avoid
> the overhead of two votes the votes are run in parrallel by just
> cc'ing both lists on the one vote email. You can also just email
> general@ asking for review comments without actually holding a vote,
> depending on who's around and active you may get comments but often
> people are busy and wont find the time till there's actually a [VOTE]
> email.
> I've had a look at the artifacts, the NOTICE file still isn't perfect,
> i probably wasn't as clear as i could have been in the RC1 comments -
> the NOTICE file should start with the: Project Name,  ASF copyright,
> and product includes... statement. so:
> Apache Kato
> Copyright 2009 The Apache Software Foundation
> This product includes software developed by The Apache Software
> Foundation (
> and then any Kato specific notices. The HTTPD project is often given
> as an example, see one of their NOTICE files at:
> Its also good for every downloadable artifact to include a README and
> RELEASE_NOTES file so is easy to find what the artifact is for and
> whats changed in this release of it, but those are missing in some of
> these Kato artifacts.
> Part of doing releases is working out when to ask for reviews and when
> to calling votes. There's a balance that needs to be found between
> wasting time rebuilding the release, waiting for comments, and calling
> votes too often so people stop bothering looking as they assume its
> not ready and there'll be a next vote they can review.
>     ...ant

Stuart Monteith

View raw message