Good idea. Sounds reasonable to me. Patrick
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Tim Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Thanks for the feedback! >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> I see a number of NOTICE files in the source artifact. e.g. >>> >> >>> >> >>> ./distribution/src/main/resources-hadoop1/notices/jetty-6.1.26.jar.NOTICE >>> >> >>> >> I don't believe you should be including these given the artifact >>> >> doesn't include those jars. I'm not sure what to make of this... >>> >> >>> > >>> > These *.NOTICE files are a part of the source distro because we use them >>> > plus the embedded script to generate the NOTICE file for the binary >>> > artifact. It it enough to explain there existence or do we need to >>> rename >>> > them there extension to something else? >>> > >>> >>> Honestly, I'm not sure (haven't seen this before with recent incubator >>> projects). I'd just be concerned re confusion... Perhaps one of the >>> other mentors can comment, my concern may be unwarranted. >>> >>> Given this is a release tool (iiuc) and not part of blur itself, >>> perhaps it would be better to move this elsewhere? Into it's own >>> subdirectory separate from the project "source"? >>> >>> e.g. cassandra keeps it's logo in the svn repository, but it's >>> separate from the released "source": >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/cassandra/ >>> >> >> What if we kept them in the source repo, but removed them from the source >> artifact upon release? Only the combined binary NOTICE is needed to create >> the binary artifact from the source artifact. We really only need those >> files when we need to add or change the binary NOTICE file. >> >> What are people's thoughts on this? > > I'd just renaming them to something that can't reasonably be confused > with a formal NOTICE and move on rather than redo packaging and all. > >> Also is this something that should hold up this release? > > I don't view this as a blocker. > >> Should we start the vote over considering that the mail list issues of last >> week? > > Yes, I think some momentum was lost with the mail issues and a vote > restart would help. > > --tim
