myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] release of MyFaces Core 2.1.9
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:19:43 GMT
I am fairly certain we have to license our test source.   I'm not sure
about test data, but it is probably easier to add a license than to
research the topic since there was only one data file.

Here's what I determined after looking at each file.  I am out of time
for now, but I will try to add licenses for these over the weekend.

# These files looks trivial -- I don't even know if they support
comments.   I would think we can exclude these.
implee6/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/javax.servlet.ServletContainerInitializer
impl/src/test/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider
impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider

# Needs standard APL
impl/src/test/java/org/apache/myfaces/config/annotation/ClassByteCodeAnnotationFilterTest.java
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/composite/testSimpleThisResourceReference.xhtml
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/lifecycle/view2.xhtml
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/lifecycle/view1.jsp
impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-component.vm (in velocity comment style)
impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-tag.vm (in velocity comment style)
impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-web-config.vm (in velocity comment style)
shared-public/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view2.xhtml
shared-public/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view1.jsp
shared/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view2.xhtml
shared/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view1.jsp

# not sure about this one, but probably needs license as it looks like
source for generating files.
impl/src/main/conf/META-INF/.standard-faces-config-base.xml.jsfdia

# mostly empty file?  Maybe stick license inside instead of dummy text?
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/composite/javax.faces/jsf.js
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/jsf/html/javax.faces/jsf.js
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/updateheadres/resources/javax.faces/jsf.js

# not sure about this one.  Looks like data, not source.   Probably
should put a license on it to be safe.
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/context/nestedScriptCDATA.xml

# Is CDDL+GPL a compatible license? What are we using this for?  The
xsd files?  I think that xsd files are fair game for inclusion.
impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/glassfish-LICENSE.txt
impl/src/main/resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/javaee_5.xsd
impl/src/main/resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd


# We can exclude this one
impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt




On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Do we require all licenses in place even for test files? I think the
> related files does not require the license, because they are not code
> at all. For example, the intention
> META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider
> is set the default lifecycle provider, so it only contains a
> reference.
>
> Anyway, I'll do another try next week.
>
> regards,
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
> 2012/9/13 Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>:
>> I still have to vote -1 until we have fixed the licenses for all files
>> that need licenses.  Licensing is one of the few absolute requirements
>> for an approved release.
>>
>> I know that this vote is dying the death of a thousand cuts, but I am
>> doing the best I can to identify as many problems at once.   What has
>> taken me several hours to identify this morning could have been done
>> by someone knowledgeable with maven in a few minutes.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Ok, good to know that. Maybe we can enable rat on the next release. I
>>> think we can continue with the release vote too.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Leonardo
>>>
>>> 2012/9/13 Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>:
>>>> And here's what I did to come up with this list:
>>>>
>>>> mvn apache-rat:check -Drat.numUnapprovedLicenses=9999
>>>>
>>>> ls -1 */target/rat.txt
>>>>
>>>> api/target/rat.txt
>>>> bundle/target/rat.txt
>>>> implee6/target/rat.txt
>>>> impl/target/rat.txt
>>>> parent/target/rat.txt
>>>> shaded-impl/target/rat.txt
>>>> shared-public/target/rat.txt
>>>> shared/target/rat.txt
>>>>
>>>> and then went through that list of files by hand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>> Due to my lack of maven experience, it's taken me awhile to figure out
>>>>> how to configure apache rat so that I could get past the two license
>>>>> exceptions in the api project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the full list of unapproved files in the rest of the project:
>>>>>
>>>>> implee6/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/javax.servlet.ServletContainerInitializer
>>>>>
>>>>> impl/src/test/java/org/apache/myfaces/config/annotation/ClassByteCodeAnnotationFilterTest.java
>>>>> impl/src/test/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider
>>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/composite/testSimpleThisResourceReference.xhtml
>>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/composite/javax.faces/jsf.js
>>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/jsf/html/javax.faces/jsf.js
>>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/updateheadres/resources/javax.faces/jsf.js
>>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/lifecycle/view2.xhtml
>>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/lifecycle/view1.jsp
>>>>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/context/nestedScriptCDATA.xml
>>>>> impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-component.vmimpl/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/glassfish-LICENSE.txt
>>>>> impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt
>>>>> impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider
>>>>> impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-tag.vm
>>>>> impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-web-config.vm
>>>>> impl/src/main/resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/javaee_5.xsd
>>>>> impl/src/main/resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd
>>>>> impl/src/main/conf/META-INF/.standard-faces-config-base.xml.jsfdia
>>>>>
>>>>> shared-public/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view2.xhtml
>>>>> shared-public/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view1.jsp
>>>>>
>>>>> shared/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view2.xhtml
>>>>> shared/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view1.jsp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is what needed to be added to the api/om.xml file in order to
>>>>> skip the two files.   From what I can tell, we probably should write
>>>>> license rules for these files rather than exclude them, but that's not
>>>>> a show-stopper.
>>>>>
>>>>>       <plugin>
>>>>>         <groupId>org.apache.rat</groupId>
>>>>>         <artifactId>apache-rat-plugin</artifactId>
>>>>>         <configuration>
>>>>>           <excludes>
>>>>>             <exclude>src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/dojo-LICENSE.TXT</exclude>
>>>>>             <exclude>src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt</exclude>
>>>>>           </excludes>
>>>>>         </configuration>
>>>>>       </plugin>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have updated the artifacts, so we can continue the vote. Please
put
>>>>>> the vote on the mail with subject:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [VOTE] release of Apache MyFaces 2.1.9
>>>>>> [VOTE] release of Apache MyFaces 2.0.15
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/9/11 Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems that one is the only artifact that does not have the
update.
>>>>>>> All other source files installed in nexus repository are ok.
Maybe it
>>>>>>> was because the assembly files were compiled before the final
>>>>>>> sources-release.zip file, so the old one was used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll rebuild everything everything again and send another vote
mail.
>>>>>>> Thanks for notice it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leonardo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/9/11 Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> So I finally thought to look at the dates of the files inside
of the
>>>>>>>>  the Sep 10th myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip
file.
>>>>>>>> They are all from
>>>>>>>> Sep 4th, so the problem does appear to be that this piece
wasn't
>>>>>>>> rebuilt in your last release.   This is probably why the
license files
>>>>>>>> are still missing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Leonardo,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rat is still complaining about the same 7 licensing issues.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, only certain instances of these files appear
to be missing licenses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> myfaces-core-2.1.9-src> find . -name _ExtLang.js -exec
ls -1 {} \;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .This one has the license header.  It comes from
>>>>>>>>> myfaces-api-2.1.9-sources.jar inside of
>>>>>>>>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> exists -- ./src/META-INF/internal-resources/org.apache.myfaces.core.impl.util/_ExtLang.js
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following two are identical.  The first one is the
one rat flags
>>>>>>>>> as needing a header.   I guess that's because it's the
"source"
>>>>>>>>> version of all the rest of them.   It comes from
>>>>>>>>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip inside of
>>>>>>>>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz.   Maybe this
file also needs
>>>>>>>>> to be fixed in svn?  I was not able to determine where
this file comes
>>>>>>>>> from in SVN.   You had said that module was essentially
a snapshot of
>>>>>>>>> SVN.   Maybe this snapshot did not get updated because
we reused the
>>>>>>>>> version number?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> missing -- ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> missing -- ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/target/classes/META-INF/internal-resources/org.apache.myfaces.core.impl.util/_ExtLang.js
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [........ The rest of this email can likely be ignored....]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following two are the compressed-down versions with
no extra
>>>>>>>>> whitespace or comments, which is what you would expect:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> missing -- ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/target/classes/META-INF/internal-resources/javax.faces/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> missing -- ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/target/classes/META-INF/resources/myfaces/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have double and triple-checked to insure that I have
a new
>>>>>>>>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz download, and
all of the files
>>>>>>>>> inside it were built on Sep 10, 8-to-10pm EST, which
is right before
>>>>>>>>> the email you sent out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 mkienenb users 8119569 Sep 10 21:31
>>>>>>>>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz
>>>>>>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 mkienenb users 8119322 Sep 10 21:30
>>>>>>>>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.zip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -rw-rw-r--  1 mkienenb users  900906 Sep 10 20:24 myfaces-api-2.1.9-sources.jar
>>>>>>>>> drwxrwxr-x 12 mkienenb users    4096 Sep 11 21:50 myfaces-core-module-2.1.9
>>>>>>>>> -rw-rw-r--  1 mkienenb users 5863230 Sep 10 20:24
>>>>>>>>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip
>>>>>>>>> -rw-rw-r--  1 mkienenb users 1809659 Sep 10 20:24 myfaces-impl-2.1.9-sources.jar
>>>>>>>>> -rw-rw-r--  1 mkienenb users  423440 Sep 10 20:24
>>>>>>>>> myfaces-impl-shared-2.1.9-sources.jar
>>>>>>>>> \
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unapproved licenses:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_EvalHandlers.js
>>>>>>>>>   /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_RuntimeQuirks.js
>>>>>>>>>   /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/xhrCore/engine/BaseRequest.js
>>>>>>>>>   /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_DomExperimental.js
>>>>>>>>>   /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js
>>>>>>>>>   /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/dojo-LICENSE.TXT
>>>>>>>>>   /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have fixed the files with missing licenses, included
a fix for
>>>>>>>>>> MYFACES-3605, so I'll send another vote over the
new artifacts soon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2012/9/7 Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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