Thanks for the heads up Richard. I'll check whether we are using it. Svet.
> On 24.11.2016 г., at 16:56, Richard Downer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Svet, > > There's a discussion going on elsewhere in ASF[1] about The JSON License[2] > - it was previously acceptable to ASF and was on the Category A list[3]. > However, it's been realised that the decision to place it in Category A was > incorrect, and it has now been moved to Category X. This means that > software covered by The JSON License must not be a transitive dependency of > Apache software releases. > > I believe that the software this affects is the "json.org" or "org.json" > Java JSON library. I don't think that we use this, but it's possible that > it's a transitive dependency. > > If this comes up in your LICENSE rework then we'll need to take some action > on it - we have a grace period so it doesn't necessarily have to be > replaced this release, although we would need to update NOTICE. However > there exist drop-in compatible replacements so it may be easier to just > deal with it now. > > If you'd like me to link you to more of the discussion then I can do that. > > Richard. > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/bb18f942ce7eb83c11438303c818b885810fb76385979490366720d5@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > [2]http://www.json.org/license.html > [3]https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-a > > On 24 November 2016 at 13:52, Svetoslav Neykov < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> That's some good news. Thanks for taking the time to look at this Andrea. >> I also have some progress to share. Today I was finally able to build >> Brooklyn with all tests passing (consistently at that) - on a branch that >> had all my recent PRs. Thanks Geoff for reviewing and merging all of them. >> I'm currently checking whether our LICENSE files need an update because of >> updated dependencies and fixing the corresponding scripts to work with the >> current project structure. Next will turn my attention to testing the >> jclouds 1.9.3 PRs. As soon as they are merged we can have our first RC. >> >> Also would be nice to include a proper fix for what #452 [1] tried to >> solve (but failed at). >> Any other suggestions for PRs to include in the RC are welcome. >> >> Our change log needs some love so any help there will be greatly >> appreciated. >> >> Svet. >> >>> On 24.11.2016 г., at 15:16, Andrea Turli <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> jclouds 1.9.3 is officially out -- see >>> http://markmail.org/thread/qlapnppmfbilje7p for more details >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> FYI @bostko already created this PR to bump jclouds version >>> https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/457 >>> >>> I've generated the dependency:list from tag rel/jclouds-1.9.2 and >>> rel/jclouds-1.9.3 from jclouds/jclouds repos (see >>> https://gist.github.com/andreaturli/b7c178519ab4d029d562643426a2738d and >>> https://gist.github.com/andreaturli/8d54e4340ef0a4c650022396b4b54b89) >> and >>> apart from org.apache.jclouds versions I can't see any new version for >> the >>> transitive dependencies. >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> I've also checked the swift vs openstack-swift issue when targeting the >>> brooklyn persistence to IBM SoftLayer Object Storage: it works fine with >>> jclouds 1.9.3 and jclouds 2.0.0 so this shouldn't be an issue for the >>> release. (see https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-examples/pull/90) >>> >>> HTH, >>> Andrea >>> >>> On 18 November 2016 at 12:19, Andrea Turli <andrea.turli@cloudsoftcorp. >> com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi there, >>>> >>>> I've released the Apache jclouds 1.9.3-rc1 (see [1] and [2] for more >>>> details) >>>> >>>> Please download, test and vote if you can! >>>> >>>> Andrea >>>> >>>> [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ >> 42f3a91008890939cf344f35320f86 >>>> bcc48f814119655d7347c9bcca@%3Cdev.jclouds.apache.org%3E >>>> [2]: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ >> 94981b8f456785ffea640af3be9207 >>>> 103bb4b7ee2f6d5bb783e98c2c@%3Cdev.jclouds.apache.org%3E >>>> >>>> On 17 November 2016 at 19:01, Duncan Johnston Watt <duncan.johnstonwatt@ >>>> cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 Andrea thanks >>>>> >>>>> Duncan Johnston-Watt >>>>> CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation >>>>> >>>>> Twitter | @duncanjw >>>>> Mobile | +44 777 190 2653 >>>>> Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt >>>>> Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt >>>>> >>>>> On 17 November 2016 at 06:09, Aled Sage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1, sounds great - thanks Andrea! >>>>>> >>>>>> There are some really import jclouds fixes in 1.9.3-SNAPSHOT (or >> 2.0.0) >>>>>> that we want, such as an OutOfMemoryError deploying to Softlayer [1]. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's worth hanging fire on Brooklyn 0.10.0 until we have a jclouds >> 1.9.3 >>>>>> release. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the meantime, we should still get our own house in order by doing >> the >>>>>> first of the steps below (i.e. dealing with open PRs; ensuring no-one >>>>> has >>>>>> any imminent important contributions to make for 0.10.0, etc). >>>>>> >>>>>> Aled >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BROOKLYN-364 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17/11/2016 11:37, Alex Heneveld wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> That would be a great solution Andrea! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 17 Nov 2016 08:18, "Andrea Turli" <[email protected] >>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm happy to volunteer for releasing an official jclouds 1.9.3 which >>>>> may >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> the half-house solution here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wdyt? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andrea >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 17 November 2016 at 08:25, Svetoslav Neykov < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is going to be the first release that actually works in Karaf. >>>>> The >>>>>>>>> docs are still assuming classic though so I suggest we keep >>>>> recommending >>>>>>>>> the classic distribution for 0.10.0. >>>>>>>>> For next release let's plan on updating the docs and switching the >>>>>>>>> recommended distribution to the Karaf based one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Svet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 16.11.2016 г., at 13:22, Aled Sage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's far past time that we did a Brooklyn 0.10.0 release! I >> suggest >>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> aim for that soon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To that end, I suggest the following steps: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * Deal with open PRs: >>>>>>>>>> o People shout out about any PRs you think are very important >>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> be merged, before that release. >>>>>>>>>> o Review open PRs >>>>>>>>>> (for any that won't get merged into 0.10.0, clearly mark >>>>> them as >>>>>>>>>> such and say why). >>>>>>>>>> * Any pending/remaining work: >>>>>>>>>> o Give people until Friday evening (uk time) to submit any >>>>> other >>>>>>>>>> very important PRs that are being working on. >>>>>>>>>> o People shout out about any known issues that they see as >>>>>>>>>> blockers for a release. >>>>>>>>>> * Do some initial testing, using master (before Friday). >>>>>>>>>> * Aim to produce a first release candidate on Friday evening (uk >>>>> time). >>>>>>>>>> * Do the usual QA/fix cycle until the release is ready. >>>>>>>>>> * Write release notes, etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of the first steps, reviewing the PRs is a big piece of work! If >> you >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> have time to help, then please lend a hand by reviewing and/or >>>>> testing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PRs, and commenting on them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we should try to squeeze lots of additional PRs into >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 0.10.0 - there is already a huge amount in there compared to 0.9.0! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Richard, are our release process docs up-to-date at [1]? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Aled >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] http://brooklyn.apache.org/developers/committers/release- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> process/index.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
