maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
Date Sun, 22 Sep 2013 23:39:18 GMT
On 22 September 2013 08:13, Mark Derricutt <mark@talios.com> wrote:
> On 22/09/2013, at 9:28 AM, Jason van Zyl <jason@tesla.io> wrote:
>
> A check is performed to ensure that each file in the source archive is
> present in the release revision
>
>
> Should that not be the other way around? That every file in the git clone
> should be in the source archive?  Or vice versa, that should be neither
> more, or less files?

The point of checking the source archive against the SCM tag is to
ensure that all the files in the source release have got the correct
license clearance.
It is assumed that license conditions are checked when content is
added to SCM, because that is in the CLA signed by committers.

If there are files in the SCM tag that are not in the source release,
that is generally not a problem as far as licensing is concerned
(thought it's possible that the NOTICE/LICENSE files might need
adjusting to take account of the missing files).

Of course the missing files may be important for the functioning of
the code - that is a separate matter.

Ideally the two file sets agree, with the possible exception of some
files that only belong in SCM, e.g. .gitignore is not needed in the
source archive, and it does not make much sense to release a DOAP
file. There may be some other SCM-only files. But I agree any
discrepancies need to be investigated.

> Mark
>
> --
> Mark Derricutt — twitter — podcast — blog — google+
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org


Mime
View raw message