myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] release of MyFaces Core 2.1.9
Date Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:51:35 GMT
Hi

2012/9/7 Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>:
>  [X] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released:
>
> Looks like we have 5 files missing licensing information.
>
>
>
> 7 Unknown Licenses
>
> *******************************
>
> Unapproved licenses:
>
> The five files below appear to be missing any kind of licensing
> information.    The rest of the files in this directory have licensing
> information.
>
>
> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_EvalHandlers.js
> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_RuntimeQuirks.js
> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/xhrCore/engine/BaseRequest.js
> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_DomExperimental.js
> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js
>
>

It seems to be related to some refactoring into our code base.

>
> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/dojo-LICENSE.TXT
>
> "New" BSD or AFL 2.1.  Bsd is approved, so maybe just add to exclude list.
>

Yes

>
> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt
>
> APL 2, but unusual format? -- add to exclude list?
>

Yes.

regards,

Leonardo Uribe

>
> Below is the link describing what we need to do to add files to an exclude list.
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jackrabbit-dev/200907.mbox/%3C510143ac0907010606j73c9d973yf40d8c2b03896cba@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks!  Not sure how I missed that one.   Withdrawing my vote.   I'll
>> let you know how it turns out.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> This artifact:
>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemyfaces-034/org/apache/myfaces/core/myfaces-core-module/2.1.9/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip
>>>
>>> is the one that allows to build it using maven. In practice, it is a
>>> copy of the sources from the svn. This artifact is included also in:
>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemyfaces-034/org/apache/myfaces/core/myfaces-core-assembly/2.1.9/myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.zip
>>>
>>> Build it is quite simple: unpack and mvn install.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>
>>> 2012/9/6 Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>:
>>>> So I'm doing the work to vote for a release -- something I haven't
>>>> participated in in a very long time.
>>>>
>>>> Leonardo's key in KEYS - check
>>>> .jar.md5 matches - check
>>>> .jar.asc.md5 matches - check
>>>> .jar.sha1 matches -check
>>>> .jar.asc.sha1 matches -check
>>>> .asc files mat
>>>>
>>>> Includes source - check
>>>> Source builds --  Not seeing any kind of build system or build instructions.
>>>>
>>>> Checking our web site only shows how to build from an svn checkout.
>>>>
>>>> Did we somehow lose the ability to build from our released source when
>>>> we switched to maven?
>>>> Because unless something has changed this is a big deal.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
>>>> ====================
>>>> What Must Every ASF Release Contain?
>>>>
>>>> Every ASF release *must* contain a source package, which must be
>>>> sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they have
>>>> access to the appropriate platform and tools.
>>>> [...]
>>>> What are the ASF requirements on approving a release?
>>>>
>>>> [...] Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed
>>>> source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
>>>> executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the
>>>> package contains the required contents.
>>>> ====================
>>>>
>>>> We hit this issue in Cayenne a couple years back and had to do some
>>>> work to fix it.
>>>>
>>>> http://markmail.org/thread/njray5dbazwcdcts
>>>>
>>>> The natural inclination is to argue about it and try to say it's not
>>>> required.   One can read through lots of threads on that if you really
>>>> want to satisfy that need.
>>>>
>>>> But it all comes down to the fact that our "open source" releases need
>>>> to be something that someone can modify and build.   And right now,
>>>> that isn't doable.  Source control systems come and go.   The ASF
>>>> might disappear next year.   Or you might just be some poor guy who,
>>>> five years from now, has to work on a project I wrote to fix some
>>>> minor bug and find that the particular branch for Myfaces 2.1.9
>>>> accidentally got corrupted.  The reasons for why it is done this way
>>>> are numerous and worthwhile.   But even if that doesn't sell you on
>>>> it, in the end it comes down to being a requirement of a release,
>>>> whether or not you agree with it.
>>>>
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/201008.mbox/%3CAANLkTi=YKjoAW6SuKPTi_wfHcOLkLY4xCwO_CpfjXwOs@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/201008.mbox/%3CAANLkTi=UT4HE_ntJQMaqN4tj2jXgBeAkBSrcDo9ZHtxo@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/201008.mbox/%3CAANLkTikOgYVs+L8SyJ0bOvCuB1780xytfCA9bvMvE27w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>
>>>> But don't just take my word on it, read through the 123 messages on
>>>> the legal discuss thread :)
>>>>
>>>> http://markmail.org/thread/njray5dbazwcdcts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So at least for now,
>>>>
>>>>  [X] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released:
>>>>
>>>> - Release cannot be built and tested from source.

Mime
View raw message