incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reto Bachmann-Gmür <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] - Relase Apache Clerezza 0.2-incubating (RC5)
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:59:37 GMT
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder <> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding +1
> in
> > the ppmc) it had to be withdrawn because of missing or incorrect NOTICE
> and
> > license files. Also the source distribution contained the sources of
> modules
> > that are not part of the release profile. The new release candidate fixes
> > these issues, for that it provides a new module containing the assembly
> > descriptor that replicates the directory structure excluding modules not
> in
> > the release profile.
> >
> > This is now the fifth vote to release Clerezza parent and all the
> modules in
> > the release profile.
> >
> > A zip with the source distribution and one with the compiled tdb launcher
> > are available with their signatures at:
> >
> >
> >
> > In svn the release version is tagged parent-0.2-incubating.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Reto
> I've had a look and the LICENSE file in the binary distribution looks
> good now. The binary distribution is missing the NOTICE file though.

I see that the with the change to the generated NOTICE files the binary
assembly no longer contains the file. I've created CLEREZZA-682 to address
this, can we proceed with the release anyway or is this a blocker? (just
releasing the source version would be fine as well, imho)

> The source distribution has a README.txt which says ""This is a source
> distribution containing different modules to which different notices
> from copyright holders apply, see the NOTICE files in the root folders
> of the individual modules." That might be better to also mention
> licensing, perhaps "...different licenses and notices...see the
> LICENSE and NOTICE files...", i'd probably still vote for it with the
> text as it is though.
I have no problem changing this for the future, but I would like to remark
that the current information on copyrights and licenses seems more explicit
than the graduated apache project I looked at (sling and servicemix).

> Also remember still my comment from the previous thread - not everyone
> here will be happy with source license doc like this and not all in
> the top LICENSE file so pester people like your mentors to make sure
> you'll get the necessary votes.

While our champion participated in the discussion, unfortunately I got no
feedback from our mentors (sent mail on private list and added them
individually as recipient to the last release thread). But weith Tommaso we
had already an IPMC member vote and I understood you and Bertrand that you
would support a release after the licensing/notice issues have been fixed.

The main question seem to me if we can go on with the vote despite the
missing notice in the binary release candidate and if yes if we should
exclude the binary from this candidate (and decide only on releasing the
source distro).


>  ...ant
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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