incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2
Date Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:36:07 GMT
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have
> taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very
> seriously.
>
> It is for that very reason that, for example, we’d like rat exclusions to
> be discussed and not ignored and for it also to be affirmed that our test
> data (some of which is necessarily pseudo code) to not need to be licensed
> since doing so would break our build and explicit Apache guidelines specify
> that in these cases no license header is required — which is precisely why
> we excluded them via rat and precisely why those exlusions should be
> discussed, not ignored.
>

The problem though is that rat exclusions are meant to be a sign of things
that have been vetted and confirmed as not apache licensed, but still
acceptable for inclusion.  Most projects I have seen use rat exclusions do
it for:

- build output, we don't care nor should we care, about the output of a
build from the source release
- Files that are licensed as other Cat A
- Files that can't have a header for technical reasons

It is typical that when the IPMC reviews a release, the contents of rat
exclusions are checked first, to confirm that nothing is accidentally
excluded that shouldn't be, or that it is excluded and properly licensed.

I'm inclined to vote -1 at this point as well..  I want confirm that the
list of issues Justin raised have been entered in your backlog.  To me, the
minimum amount of work that has to be done to convert to a +1 is:

- Remove the binary zip files from the source release
- Every issue raised by Justin represented in JIRA somewhere
- Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be Apache
license
- Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from
other locations



>
> Gj
>
> On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
> > exclusions
> > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
> > > members evaluating a release.
> >
> > Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide things.
> > I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so perhaps I
> have
> > some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course choose
> to
> > ignore it.
> >
> > > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot
> > simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> > > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based
> > on
> > > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
> >
> > Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in later
> > releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF licensing or
> > release policy. I suggest you try are fix those.
> >
> > > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our
> > mentors to advise on their perspective on this too.
> >
> > That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your mentors
> > can vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be totally
> > fine if you got  3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is the
> only
> > -1.That’s how Apache works.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message