incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ali Lown <...@lown.me.uk>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Wave 0.4 based on RC2
Date Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:34:27 GMT
I have put them in a whitepapers folder:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/whitepapers/

On 3 June 2013 22:15, Angus Turner <angusisfree@gmail.com> wrote:
> On further inspection they contain all the stuff to build them as well, it
> really looks like they should be in a different repo. Or at least not
> included in a release. Not sure what we should do here...
>
> Thanks
> Angus Turner
> angusisfree@gmail.com
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Angus Turner <angusisfree@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Ali,
>> Maybe the easiest thing with the whitepaper and spec directories is to
>> move them onto the wiki. seems a bit weird to have documentation like that
>> included within a release...
>>
>> Once I've got them locally I'll submit a review request with those folders
>> deleted...
>>
>> Thanks
>> Angus Turner
>> angusisfree@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Alain Levesque <albonono@wavewatchers.org>wrote:
>>
>>> +1 since 2010 and it's never, never and did I mention never to late.
>>> Bravo!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Ali Lown <ali@lown.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Looking back over this, in preparation of doing some more work on this.
>>> > Comments/questions inlined:
>>> >
>>> > > - Unusual CHANGES file: I usually see people adding issue numbers our
>>> of
>>> > > Jira
>>> >
>>> > The Wave Jira is fairly incomplete wrt. actual changes that have
>>> > occurred. (I would estimate about half of the changes have Jira
>>> > tickets, all recent ones have review board numbers, but early commits
>>> > have neither).
>>> >
>>> > As such, I saw it mentioned in the Common's guide that the use of an
>>> > 'svn log' instead was not strange.
>>> >
>>> > What do you suggest doing with this instead?
>>> >
>>> > > - Example NOTICE file:
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt
>>> > ,
>>> >
>>> > Ok. I shall rewrite this to be in that style.
>>> >
>>> > > Mockito is not mentioned with link as the others
>>> >
>>> > Will be added. :)
>>> >
>>> > > - server-config.xml, jsongadgets.json, jaas.config no license. Maybe
>>> > others
>>> > > too? Please utilize: http://creadur.apache.org/rat/ it's a great
>>> tool to
>>> > > check our licenses
>>> >
>>> > Rat looks useful. I will add a note to the release page and on the
>>> > wiki, but I think it will be easiest to run standalone ATM. (Perhaps
>>> > it can be made part of the mavenized process though).
>>> >
>>> > > - request_codereview wrong license (Google Inc)?
>>> >
>>> > I am not even sure why this file hasn't been deleted yet. It was only
>>> > used for the old Google code reviews, and doesn't work with
>>> > review-board. (And has no reason to be made to work with it). I will
>>> > remove this file.
>>> >
>>> > > - files in /spec - allowed to distribute? No License given, where do
>>> > these
>>> > > files come from?
>>> >
>>> > These files are the whitepapers behind the conversation and federation
>>> > protocols that Google wrote. Should I just add the license header to
>>> > them and leave them where they are?
>>> >
>>> > > - src folder: we usually use org.apache prefix. Not seen any classes
>>> with
>>> > > that
>>> >
>>> > Heh. You are correct that the org.apache prefix is not used at-all.
>>> > The majority of the code lives under the org.waveprotocol namespace
>>> > (for legacy reasons). Changing to use org.apache is a fairly major
>>> > undertaking, and would serve little purpose if the next release is
>>> > going to be mavenized (with the full codebase relocation that brings).
>>> >
>>> > > - thirdparty: allowed to distribute? Check with compatible licenses.
>>> Full
>>> > > list whats working what not is here:
>>> > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
>>> >
>>> > My understanding from the work Angus did is that these are all under
>>> > licenses allowing distribution. We have an ant task (ant
>>> > get-third-party) for the few we are not allowed to distribute.
>>> >
>>> > > - Wave Logo (/war) seems to miss TM symbol. Please check:
>>> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs.html
>>> >
>>> > I assume you are referring to war/static/logo.png. Notably this is a
>>> > different image to the logo used on the incubator website. (Which also
>>> > lacks a TM).
>>> >
>>> > Which of these should be used? Should they both have a trademark?
>>> >
>>> > > - Whats the meaning of wave-0.4-release folder?
>>> >
>>> > A good question. I don't remember seeing that before, but it
>>> > definitely shouldn't be there. :P
>>> > (It appears my branch folder wasn't quite as clean as I thought).
>>> >
>>> > > - Whats the meaning of whitepapers folder?
>>> >
>>> > This holds the rest of the whitepapers, but these are older than the
>>> > ones in spec/, and are no-longer fully up-to-date wrt. the code.
>>> > Though still often contain useful information explaining why something
>>> > has been done in the way that it has.
>>> >
>>> > Should I just add the license header and leave them there?
>>> >
>>> > Alternatively, perhaps spec/ and whitepapers/ would be better licensed
>>> > and moved into doc/?
>>> >
>>> > Ali
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alain Levesque Wavewatchers
>>> Wavyemailbeta:*
>>> *
>>> *Web Page <http://albonobo.com/>
>>> *
>>>
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message