river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Barnaby <Frank.Barn...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release apache-river-2.1.1-incubating
Date Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:09:07 GMT

On Dec 23, 2007, at 16:38, Craig L Russell wrote:

> Hi All,
> On Dec 23, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote:
>> To be clear, the classes and jars both build fine by using the  
>> "all" and "jars" ant targets.  The javadoc no longer builds for the  
>> end user because of the addition of the url pointing to the NOTICE  
>> file to allow for stand-alone javadoc distributions.  The release  
>> zip files also cannot be generated through the use of the  
>> "build.release" target.  While the javadoc should build for the end  
>> user, we never intended the end user to build release bundles.   
>> However, I think it looks bad to have a build target that fails for  
>> the end user--I agree that we should either fix it or remove it  
>> from the end user build scripts.
>> By fixing the javadoc end-user build, the release build will be  
>> fixed as well.  The fix will require me to add the NOTICE and  
>> LICENSE files to the source sub-directory in the source  
>> distribution.  Note that the source distribution already contains  
>> the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the top level, but the doc and  
>> release builds are not aware of those top-level files.  After  
>> committing the changes, I'll generate another release, another set  
>> of corresponding signature and check-sum files, upload the files to  
>> people-apache.org, some folks can do some sanity tests, and we can  
>> start another vote.  Did I overlook any steps?
>> Is this course of action we want to pursue?
> Does this course of action address Niclas's issue below?

Adding a disclaimer file is simple enough, so we could include it as  


> On Dec 23, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Mark Brouwer wrote:
>> I think we shouldn't release a source distribution that doesn't  
>> actually
>> build. But before voting I would like to know whether we can fix this
>> issue after we approved the release and before presenting a  
>> distribution
>> to Incubator. I hope so because I don't want to spoil the party.
> What the PMC votes on are the signed distribution artifacts so to  
> change any bit requires another spin and another vote.
> Craig
>> -- 
>> Mark
>> Frank
> On Dec 22, 2007, at 12:46 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> On Saturday 22 December 2007 05:13, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>> As a minor remark, it would have been good to have the Incubator
>>> disclaimer already in the top-level index.html files within the
>>> release packages, but it's not that big a deal since the disclaimer
>>> can still be found in the release notes.
>> I think others in the Incubator PMC might be of a different  
>> opinion. Once the
>> Tar ball is exploded, it is no longer obvious that it is Incubating  
>> project
>> you are dealing with.
>> I think Wicket[1] set some good examples;
>> - Put DISCLAIMER file in the root of the two tar balls. (That is  
>> enough
>>   for me to approve this release.)
>> - Top level directory inside the tar ball to retain the fully  
>> versioned name,
>>   which includes the disclaimer. (Would like to see that in any  
>> future
>>   releases.)
>> Otherwise, everything looks cool to me...
>> [1]
>> http://people.apache.org/dist/incubator/wicket/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-beta1/dist/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-beta1.tar.gz
>> Cheers
>> -- 
>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>> I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
>> I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
>> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
> 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!

View raw message