incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Cliff Schmidt" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve release of SCA specification APIs by Tuscany project
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:03:13 GMT
On 3/15/07, robert burrell donkin <> wrote:
> On 3/13/07, Jeremy Boynes <> wrote:
> > The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 1.0-
> > incubating of our implementation of the API classes for the OSOA
> > specification V1.0:
> >
> >
> >
> > The source archives and RAT reports can be found at:
> >
> > and the binary in the Maven repo at:
> >
> > sca-api-r1.0/1.0-incubating
> ok except for the signature issue
> major issues
> ==========
> gpg --verify sca-api-r1.0-1.0-incubating.jar.asc sca-api-r1.0-1.0-incubating.jar
> gpg: Signature made Sun Mar  4 01:53:25 2007 GMT using DSA key ID 11007026
> gpg: BAD signature from "Jeremy Boynes <>"
> MD5 sums look right
> notes and comments
> =================
> (subjective, not binding)
> it's good to include the project name in the jar
> the latest advice on best practice from cliff is that a separate
> DISCLAIMER.txt is preferred to including the incubator disclaimer in
> the NOTICE.txt. the reason is that the NOTICE.txt has legal
> implications so it's best to restrict the contents. incubator policy
> asks that the DISCLAIMER is distributed but this isn't something we
> require by downstream. IMHO this isn't important enough to consider
> re-rolling.

Just to clarify, I haven't advocated for a file necessarily named
"DISCLAIMER.txt" just for the incubator disclaimer.  I don't recall
if/what the Incubator PMC policy is on that.  I do remember when we
started the disclaimer thing (almost four years ago), we were just
adding it to the top of the README.  Either case seems reasonable to
me (with my Incubator PMC hat on) unless we have a stated policy
specifying exactly one thing.

Otherwise, Robert's comment about my advice on the NOTICE file is
correct.  The NOTICE file should only be used for attributions and
other notices required to be included by some third-party license or
as required by


> i assume that this is an apache implementation of an osoa standard
> (please correct me if this is wrong). the MANIFEST is short on details
> and is missing standard/required/recommended attributes. it's good to
> have the relationship between implementator and specifier clearly
> listed in the MANIFEST.
> org/osoa/sca-api-r1.0/1.0-incubating/ it's unusual to see 1.0 in there
> twice but then again, this may well be intentional (but though it best
> to point it out)
> - robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message