openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [VOTE RESULT] publish openjpa 0.9.6-incubating podling release
Date Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:34:42 GMT
Hi Marc,

On Nov 12, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> 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.

That's what I was recalling as well. In the incubator, the release  
manager will typically respin several times as the mentors and  
observers of the incubator tell the podling what they've done wrong.

> 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.

It's not paranoia at all. If someone tells you "you've violated  
Apache policy for trademarks, licenses, or IP" a wise person will  
respin. If someone tells you "I don't like the punctuation in your  
release note" you choose whether to respin or ignore.
>
>
>> 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.

Continuing the vote would be wrong, since the earlier votes were for  
one set of bits and the later ones for another.
>
> Do you object to re-starting the vote, or were your just trying to  
> point out that it might not have been necessary?

No, I support your decisions both to respin the bits and to restart  
the vote.

Craig
>
>
>> 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!
>>
>

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