openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprud...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE RESULT] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating podling release
Date Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:17:20 GMT
Craig-

On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> Hi Marc,
>
> Please read this regarding votes. http://www.apache.org/foundation/ 
> voting.html#ReleaseVotes
>
> <policy>
> Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow a format  
> similar to majority approval -- except that the decision is  
> officially determined solely by whether at least three +1 votes  
> were registered. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the  
> community will table the vote to release if anyone identifies  
> serious problems, but in most cases the ultimate decision, once  
> three or more positive votes have been garnered, lies with the  
> individual serving as release manager. The specifics of the process  
> may vary from project to project, but the 'minimum of three +1  
> votes' rule is universal.
> </policy>
>
> Things are slightly different in the incubator, where a big part of  
> incubation is protecting Apache from legal issues as a result of  
> releasing tainted code. See http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ 
> releasemanagement.html. But much of the incubator release policy is  
> still TODO [sic].

Yeah, I was wondering about that ... my concern was the message at  
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cxf-dev/ 
200610.mbox/%3C200610131026.27794.daniel.kulp@iona.com%3E , which  
says that a -1 counts as a veto in terms of incubator releases. Of  
course, this was just a mailing list thread, but in the absence of a  
specific documented policy, I chose to err on the side of paranoia  
and just re-start the vote.


> The release manager (in this case, Marc) has large discretion on  
> releases. While vetoing a release is not technically possible, the  
> release manager will take constructive comments seriously,  
> especially from mentors, and respin a release as many times as  
> necessary to get consensus.

I would have preferred to just continue the existing vote, but I was  
worried that while people were voting on one set of artifacts, and  
then I would swap them out at the last minute with re-spun versions  
and declare victory ... it seemed a little sketchy to me, even though  
the modifications made were very minor.

Do you object to re-starting the vote, or were your just trying to  
point out that it might not have been necessary?


> Craig
>
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
>>
>> -1 from Eddie, so the vote fails (since I believe it constitutes a  
>> veto).
>>
>> I'll re-start the vote with the fixed release files shortly.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2006, at 7:03 AM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>
>>> Marc--
>>>
>>>  Sounds good -- nice turnaround time.  :)  I agree that it's fine to
>>> defer some of these.
>>>
>>>  In NOTICE.txt, be sure to remove this:
>>>
>>>   Please read the different LICENSE files present in the licenses  
>>> directory of
>>>   this distribution.
>>
>> I just removed this as well. I hope it's the last problem with the  
>> release.
>>
>>
>>> since I don't think that this is relevant to OpenJPA.
>>>
>>> Eddie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/12/06, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Eddie-
>>>>
>>>> OK, I've fixed most of these and am re-building the release. Unless
>>>> anyone comes up with any other objections, I'll start a new vote
>>>> tomorrow morning.
>>>>
>>>> Also, see my comments inline below...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 11, 2006, at 9:11 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >  Great job on this release -- we're really down to nitty-little
>>>> > detail issues with the distribution.  More detailed comments  
>>>> are below
>>>> > -- the highlights fall into two major buckets:
>>>> >
>>>> > #1: information needed in NOTICE.txt.  This refers to the  
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> > project; it also needs to refer to the source files for the  
>>>> binary
>>>> > persistence-api JAR file as per the CDDL 1.0 license.  More
>>>> > information on ASF policy relative to this license is here:
>>>> >
>>>> >  http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>>>> >
>>>> > Additionally, NOTICE.txt should contain the copyrights for 3rd  
>>>> party
>>>> > Serp / persistence-api JARs.  For example:
>>>> >
>>>> >  http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/roller/trunk/ 
>>>> NOTICE.txt
>>>>
>>>> Fixed. If anything at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/
>>>> openjpa/trunk/openjpa-project/NOTICE.txt still looks amiss, please
>>>> let us know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > #2: ASF source headers.  There are a bunch of files in the source
>>>> > distribution that don't have source headers.  There's a great  
>>>> tool
>>>> > that one of the Incubator PMC members wrote that checks for these
>>>> > headers.  It's super easy to checkout, build, and run and can  
>>>> be found
>>>> > here:
>>>> >
>>>> >    http://code.google.com/p/arat/
>>>> >
>>>> > These are listed below.
>>>>
>>>> I've fixed most of these. See below.
>>>>
>>>> >  -1 until #1 is fixed because we need to be compliant with  
>>>> licenses
>>>> > of bundled 3rd party JARs.  I'd suggest fixing #2 as well but  
>>>> leave
>>>> > that to the community to decide -- though the Incubator PMC is  
>>>> looking
>>>> > more closely at license headers these days.  :)
>>>> >
>>>> > Eddie
>>>> >
>>>> > =====
>>>> > Items checked:
>>>> >  - md5 signatures
>>>> >  - sha1 signatures
>>>> >  - license headers on archived files
>>>> >  - example builds and runs
>>>> >  - documentation looks good
>>>> >  - license compatibility of JAR files
>>>> >
>>>> > Issues that should be addressed before release:
>>>> > - NOTICE.txt references the "ActiveMQ" distribution
>>>> > - as per CDDL 1.0, NOTICE.txt must refer to the source for the
>>>> > persistence-api sources.  For more information about including  
>>>> CDDL
>>>> > 1.0 licensed binaries, see:
>>>> >  http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>>>>
>>>> This has been fixed.
>>>>
>>>> > - source archive includes sun/misc/Perf.java
>>>>
>>>> It was only there as a compilation stub. However, since it was only
>>>> required for JDK 1.3 and lower, and since we just voted to drop
>>>> support for JDK 1.3, I just went ahead and deleted it.
>>>>
>>>> > - files missing license files:
>>>> >  <binary>/examples/META-INF/persistence.xml
>>>> >  <source>:
>>>> >    - **/*.properties
>>>> >    - **/pom.xml
>>>> >    - **/*.xml
>>>> >    - **/*.rsrc
>>>> >    - **/JPQL.jjt
>>>> >    - **/*.ProductDerivation
>>>> >    - **/*.ExpressionParser
>>>> >    - **/*.PersistenceProvider
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > - Java files without LICENSE headers -- there were 17 of these.
>>>> > Found using:
>>>> >    find . -name "*.java" -exec grep --files-without-match
>>>> > "LICENSE" {} ;
>>>>
>>>> Fixed.
>>>>
>>>> > - openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating.pom missing license header
>>>>
>>>> Fixed, I think (if you are looking at pom files that are re- 
>>>> generated
>>>> by the maven process, then they don't preserve comments, and thus
>>>> will lose the license header).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Minor issues:
>>>> > - Javadoc includes a couple of extraneous classes
>>>> >  sun.misc.Perf
>>>>
>>>> Removed.
>>>>
>>>> >  hellojpa.Main
>>>> >  hellojpa.Message
>>>>
>>>> I believe I've successfully removed these from the javadocs.
>>>>
>>>> > - JARs are named "openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating" but unzip  
>>>> into
>>>> > "openjpa-0.9.6-incubating"
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be a weird maven side-effect. I'd like to defer  
>>>> fixing
>>>> this until later.
>>>>
>>>> > - distribution files that can be removed
>>>> >  openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-binary.zip.asc.md5
>>>> >  openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-binary.zip.asc.sha1
>>>> >  openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-source.zip.asc.md5
>>>> >  openjpa-project-0.9.6-incubating-source.zip.asc.sha1
>>>>
>>>> Maven automatically generated checksums for every file it uploads
>>>> (and I manually add the .asc GPG signature to the uploaded files).
>>>> Ideally, I'd like to look into fixing this at a later date.
>>>>
>>>> > - no .tar.gz archives
>>>>
>>>> I feel it is simpler to just have a since .zip file. Since everyone
>>>> who wants to use OpenJPA had Java installed (and, therefore, has
>>>> "jar" installed), anyone is capable of unpacking the distribution.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone feel we need an additional .tar.gz archive for the  
>>>> release?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On 11/9/06, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> +1
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 11/9/06, Abe White <awhite@bea.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > +1
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>  
>>>> ___________________________________________________________________ 
>>>> __
>>>> >> __
>>>> >> > Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments,
 
>>>> may
>>>> >> contain
>>>> >> > information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and
>>>> >> affiliated
>>>> >> > entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,   
>>>> copyrighted
>>>> >> and/or
>>>> >> > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
>>>> >> individual
>>>> >> > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
>>>> >> recipient,
>>>> >> > and have received this message in error, please immediately
>>>> >> return this
>>>> >> > by email and then delete it.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>


Mime
View raw message