Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 32915D4AC for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:52:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 60922 invoked by uid 500); 7 Sep 2012 15:52:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@myfaces.apache.org Received: (qmail 60851 invoked by uid 500); 7 Sep 2012 15:52:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@myfaces.apache.org Received: (qmail 60843 invoked by uid 99); 7 Sep 2012 15:52:00 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:52:00 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lu4242@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.53 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.53] (HELO mail-pb0-f53.google.com) (209.85.160.53) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:51:55 +0000 Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2so4186581pbb.12 for ; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:51:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=uJ4436xYu9MVkME03YvXf4wJaPaw22YNIBRsIORCce4=; b=u/rKNaXyK/BccXo2s6HwQZwsAySob5ltVMYiTD+g85XtJ5MpF88D38pWBQw9POI2mp K+f75p1KJ0+0i2VqJRP7PRdyRBGP6S796l3p1FeDK17956j26r2gddM/3cLzNyxVW2f5 O74qgUTMuZbn8NwQGvMXSzdtRnJbPf7t2BYb3bj3ZK/oFdXSe3GmOVuyxXp00P0KKdtU oVU7/RbB8/Rnsvt1Uo/+SUq8Cyvxku/PP7cUP7baKPUwNz/knqSSFIXaCUIzikA4Aluu jzXHlshF0xde89ZRY512/bfUT5EKs2wAf6vWFtpSLC+HxZd0sHuBdvv5mqseseynQx5P +IMw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.240.236 with SMTP id wd12mr10560805pbc.83.1347033095302; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:51:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.182.197 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:51:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1346866783.48040.YahooMailNeo@web28905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:51:35 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [VOTE] release of MyFaces Core 2.1.9 From: Leonardo Uribe To: MyFaces Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi 2012/9/7 Mike Kienenberger : > [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 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 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 : >>>> 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.