On Aug 20, 2010, at 6:07 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: > > This version of the file appears to be generated automatically by the build > (not sure what plugin does this). The descriptive name "Annotation 1.1" is > taken directly from the project pom. Note that all of the Geronimo specs > have this same problem, so the correction will need to be applied to all of > the projects in trunk. So before I go changing anything, I'd like to have > consensus on what I need to be changing this to. So, > > 1) What should be the format of the description in the binary jar file? On > the vote thread, Kevan suggested "Apache Geronimo" or "Apache Geronimo > Annotation Spec". Since this is generated from the project pom, I don't > think using "Apache Geronimo" is best option. I suspect we might want to > maintain the spec version number in this as well, so "Apache Geronimo > Annotation 1.1 Spec" or "Apache Geronimo Common Annotation 1.1 Spec" would be > better. I believe Kevan's biggest objection was with the missing "Apache > Geronimo" designation.
Right the NOTICE should contain the project name (Apache Geronimo). We can add the subproject info. Personally, I don't think the spec version is necessary, but don't have a problem with it being there. > > 2) Should the source NOTICE file be kept as is or changed to match the > generated NOTICE file? Keeping these the same is definitely a manual > process, so there's a good chance there will be drift over time. I suspect > there's also a good chance that new projects will get created by using an > existing project as a model, so it's also likely that mismatches will get > included that way. I think I would lean toward using the common source > NOTICE file with the generic "Apache Geronimo" name. I would prefer that they were the same. Works for me. --kevan
