On 8 September 2010 12:35, Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/Sep/2010 10:31, sebb wrote: >> On 8 September 2010 08:52, Mark Hindess <mark.hind...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> I have created signed source archives for revision r991881 of trunk and >>> made them available at: >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~hindessm/milestones/6.0M3/ >> >> The signing key has RSA key ID 8050390C. >> Although it is listed in public key servers, it is not listed in >> http://www.apache.org/dist/harmony/KEYS >> which is where all keys are supposed to be obtained, according to: >> http://harmony.apache.org/download.cgi#verify > > yeah, I got a copy from SVN, but I see Mark has now updated the dist > copy too. > >> --- >> >> The top-level NOTICE file contains the following text: >> >> ==== >> The Apache Harmony Development Kit (HDK) contains a jar file from the >> Apache Derby Project for which the following notice applies: >> >> Apache Derby >> Copyright 2004-2007 The Apache Software Foundation >> >> This product includes software developed by >> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). >> ==== >> >> I think this is superfluous, as the first few lines of the file should >> be enough to cover ASF code. > > I don't follow your point here? You think we should remove these lines, > specifically, but presumably keep in the required attributions following > that were passed through from our use of Derby, right?
I see now - ignore my comment. > >> --- >> >> The top-level LICENSE file refers to Apache Yoko (incubation). >> >> Apache Yoko is no longer part of the incubator; it has been dissolved, >> and parts moved to Geronimo and CXF. >> So long as Harmony is using the Geronimo or CXF code, there should be >> no need to mention Yoko. >> I don't know what the procedure is if Harmony is using the Yoko code >> that remain in the Incubator; you should probably ask on >> Legal-discuss. > > The code hasn't changed status, but I see there is a 1.1 release > available now so let's add a TODO to move up to that and pick it up from > Geronimo. > >> --- >> >> The following files don't have AL headers and are not listed in rat.excludes: >> >> classlib/doc/overview.html >> classlib/modules/imageio/src/test/java/META-INF/services/javax.imageio.spi.CorrectProviderConfiguration >> classlib/modules/imageio/src/test/java/META-INF/services/javax.imageio.spi.IncorrectProviderConfiguration >> debian/README.Debian >> debian/patches/01-ignore.suffix.on.samsa.tools.diff >> debian/rules >> drlvm/make/classlib.override.file.patterns >> drlvm/vm/thread/src/doxyfile >> ibm-v4/make/classlib.override.file.patterns >> >> Some of these files should probably have an AL header. > > I'm quite comfortable that there is no ambiguity here, so nothing to be > concerned about. Huh? What's ambiguous? Either the file should have an AL header, in which case add the header, otherwise add the exclusion. > Thanks for the review. > > Regards, > Tim > >>> Please test these artifacts and then vote for declaring these source >>> archives as 6.0 Milestone 3. >>> >>> This vote will be open for at least three days, or until all binding >>> votes have been cast (if earlier). >>> >>> If the vote is successful, binary builds from these artifacts will be >>> made available on the download page in addition to these source >>> archives. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Mark. >>> >>> >>> >> >
