On 08/Sep/2010 12:53, sebb wrote: > 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?
Nothing, I said there was no ambiguity -- over the terms under which people receive those files. > Either the file should have an AL header, in which case add the > header, otherwise add the exclusion. +1 Regards, Tim >> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >
