incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
Date Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:18:14 GMT
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 22, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 22, 2012, at 12:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You snipped out the important part:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, thought you answered your own question there.  But since you
>>> bring it up, there is no requirement for a DISCLAIMER file. There is
>>> however a requirement for making the user aware of the incubation
>>> disclaimer.  See this page, where several options are listed:
>>>
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-disclaimer
>>
>> Keep in mind that page is clearly labeled as a "DRAFT".
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#status
>>
>> The DISCLAIMER file is certainly in the correct place in the Source distribution.
>
> Well, I was not correct here. It is in the SVN, but fails to make it into any of the
distributions.
>
> I did a MacOSX build, reviewed the NOTICE, LICENSE, rat-exclude and rat output from a
nightly build.
>
> An amazing job was done with the Headers and the RAT report!
>
> Here are my concerns:
>
> (1) DISCLAIMER ought to be included in all packages. We'll have to see if this is a SHOULD
or a MUST.
>

I think we need to make it clear to the user that this is a project
under incubation.  There are several ways of doing this.  Standalone
DISCLAIMER is one way.  Adding to README file is another explicitly
called out in the podling release guide.

> (2) LICENSE contains copyright statements which ought to be part of the NOTICE file.
Again we'll see if this is a SHOULD or a MUST.
>

Do you have some examples?

As I understand it, unless it is a required notice per the license,
the only copyrights that go into NOTICE are the ASF copyright and the
Oracle one which was relocated from the source files when the ALv2
headers were added.  We're not required to put every copyright
statement in NOTICE.


> (3) When building from source there was no warning about the inclusion of Category B?
I think that the Building Guide should be edited to more clearly explain the ext_sources and
ext_libraries. I know we have the information. It is more making this clear. Again, I'm not
sure if it a SHOULD or a MUST for a build to pause and get explicit permission to download
category B.
>

If you build with the default build flags, then you get no category B
code.  If you want category B code then you need to explicitly add
those command-line build flags.  Maybe the impact of these flags needs
to be clearer in the Building Guide?

I don't think you really want the build system to actually pause and
wait for human input.  That might complicated the Buildbot....

> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> I think that I answered the question, but I would like to ask our project Mentors
if this will be an issue in IPMC voting. I've seen enough on general@i.a.o to know that it
may be for some and not others.
>>
>> So, while this is not a problem for me, if it is likely IPMC will request an RC2
over this we should know now.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>> The SDK and Binaries are missing the DISCLAIMER file. Is a missing Incubation
DISCLAIMER in a binary package enough to prevent release? I think probably not, but this may
be an edge case. The application pop-ups do mention "Incubation" and every page linked back
to thewww.openoffice.org shows the Disclaimer...
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message