incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <>
Subject Re: Ping: [VOTE] Release Apache Rave 0.3-incubating
Date Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:49:08 GMT
Hi Upayavira,

Thanks for reviewing.

I've feedback inline below.

On 09/14/2011 10:31 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> I'm no master when it comes to reviewing releases, and I apologise for
> my lateness to the table.
> Here's two observations:
>   1. The NOTICE file should, as I understand it, include the licenses for
>      any dependencies. You have quite a few in your pom.xml, but your
>      NOTICE file is pretty empty. Shouldn't this file be better
>      populated?

I assume you refer to the NOTICE file in the svn project root and/or (same 
thing) in the release source zip?

My interpretation is (and seen that being backed in several places and several 
people, e.g. Roy Fielding) that the NOTICE (and LICENSE) files cover the content 
of the distribution itself, *only*.

Meaning, for a source distribution (or the svn project root, which might be 
regarded as a "online" distribution) the NOTICE and LICENSE files only need to 
cover what is within the sources itself. This therefore excludes external 
dependencies like what you pull in during a build.

For the non-source distribution, the binary artifacts like jars, wars and demo 
tar.gz, which (might) bundle extra dependencies, the NOTICE (and LICENSE) file 
does have to cover those extra dependencies.
And for that purpose, you'll "notice" there are different, much more extensive 
NOTICE and LICENSE files bundled within, covering those extra dependencies.

Within our project (svn), we therefore maintain multiple NOTICE and LICENSE 
files (or appendable fragments) for this purpose.

So please check the binary artifacts (jar,war,tar.gz, etc.) and review the 
NOTICE/LICENSE files which you'll find stored under their META-INF/ folder.

>   2. This one is less of a deal - the convention is for artifacts to be
>      named apache-$PROJECT-$BLAH, whereas this is rave-$BLAH. Could
>      future
>      releases be apache-rave-$BLAH?

Yes, I agree that would be better and we surely can do that for the next release.

Note though, while this might be a good convention, I've seen numerous (both 
incubating and TLP) releases which have not adopted (yet) this.
Which I think is the explanation why Rave hasn't done it either. We were just 
following some other projects examples.

> I defer to others on the incubator PMC, but I understanding is that the
> notice file needs to be better populated before this release can go out.
Please see my above comment: I think this release candidate *is* in compliance 
(and pretty good at it imo) with the rules for the NOTICE/LICENSE files.

Thanks again for your feedback,


> Upayavira
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:07 AM, "Ate Douma"<>
> wrote:
>> A week has passed since this vote started and but still no feedback so
>> far.
>> Possibly it was drowned by the Accumulo discussions, but now that has
>> passed...
>> It would be very appreciated if one or more of the IPMC members could
>> spare a
>> little time to review this podling release candidate, and cast a vote on
>> it.
>> (we still need one +1 extra from IPMC on this to pass)
>> Kind regards,
>> Ate
>> On 09/05/2011 03:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>> This is the second incubator release for Apache Rave, with the artifacts being
versioned as 0.3-incubating.
>>> We are requesting at least one IPMC member vote, as we have already received
2 binding IPMC +1 votes during the release voting on rave-dev -
>>> VOTE:
>>> Release notes:
>>> SVN source tag (r1163402):
>>> SVN source tag (r1163411):
>>> Maven staging repo:
>>> Source releases:
>>> Demo Artifacts
>>> PGP release keys:
>>> Vote open for 72 hours.
>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

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

View raw message