+1 to cut new RC2 and submit it for voting.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 10/23/15 10:24, Thomas Weise wrote:
We have -0 votes. I would propose rolling RC2 and starting a new vote. How
do others feel about it?
The changes to address issues raised are committed and we are ready to do
so.
https://github.com/apache/incubator-apex-core/commits/release-3.2
Thanks,
Thomas
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Thomas Weise <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Justin,
I also found a way to avoid DEPENDENCIES being added to the source archive.
Should we roll another RC and call a new vote?
Thanks,
Thomas
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Vlad Rozov <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Justin,
NOTICE files are automatically generated by Apache Maven remote resource
plugin included and configured in the Apache parent pom. The configuration
of the plugin points to org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 that has
a known enhancement request (please see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MASFRES-5). The same enhancement
request suggest a workaround that we implemented to bring NOTICE files in
sync.
Thank you,
Vlad
On 10/22/15 21:45, Justin Mclean wrote:
Hi,
The NOTICE files are added to the .jar files by a plugin that is setup in
the Apache POM.
It should be possible to get it to use our NOTICE file. Sorry I don’t
know enough about how that all works to be able to suggest how to do that.
Perhaps another mentor does?
I see examples of not matching the top level NOTICE elsewhere where this
POM is used.
In projects that produce multiple jars the notice in each jar may be
different, as it depends on the jars contents, so it could be that you are
seeing. Read the guiding priniciple [1] and note that it applies to
binaries as well [2]. At some point I assume you may want to ship a
convenience binary to users?
I also see other releases with .jar artifacts that have no NOTICE file
in it.
That’s not in line with current Apache policy. See [3].
"Again, these artifacts may be distributed only if they contain LICENSE
and NOTICE files. For example, the Java artifact format is based on a
compressed directory structure and those projects wishing to distribute
jars must place LICENSE and NOTICE files in the META-INF directory within
the jar."
You might want to look at similar JIRA issues here [4] and in particular
this one:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-178
BTW as long as you raise a JIRA about this I don't think this need to be
fixed right away and can wait for a future incubating release. I wouldn’t
expect any IPMC member to consider this a blocking issue for a first
release. (And if they do point them to the JIRA).
What is your recommendation, same NOTICE file in all .jar artifacts or
generated NOTICE file with (changed) name of module?
It depends on the contents of each jar, again see 1 and 2. In Apex case
it may be that they are all the same, I’d need to take a close look at the
jar’s contents to determine.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
3. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distribute-other-artifacts
4.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-864?jql=text%20~%20%22META-INF%20NOTICE%22
