For what it's worth, if you and two other people disagree that the licensing of these files should be a blocking issue, you can still do a release. As the release manager, the final decision is yours so long as you have a majority approval. [1]
[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com> wrote: > You asked about licensing on test files the last time this came up as > well so I will point to my previous reply for that topic: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/201209.mbox/%3ccam1yojbz2jn5obhkfavo-v5rvfauzsk0yjeoj66pm+wejk_...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > As for a quick fix release, It doesn't matter whether a release is a > quick fix or any other kind. The same rules apply to all releases. > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi >> >> Those files are used for test only. Is it so important to block a quick fix >> release? >> >> Regards >> >> Leonardo >> >> On Apr 17, 2014 11:36 AM, "Mike Kienenberger" <mkien...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry. -1 >>> >>> Rat shows that we have several non-trivial files that are missing headers: >>> >>> >>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/pss/acid/resources/testComposite/dynComp_1.xhtml >>> >>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/pss/acid/resources/testComposite/dynComp_3.xhtml >>> >>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/pss/acid/resources/testComposite/dynComp_4.xhtml >>> >>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/pss/acid/resources/testComposite/dynComp_2.xhtml >>> >>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/pss/acid/resources/testComposite/dynComp_7.xhtml >>> >>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/pool/resources/testComposite/dynComp_1.xhtml >>> >>> The rest of these files are not blockers, but are also showing up in >>> rat, which makes evaluating a release take much longer. Can we add >>> headers to them? We could also add them to the exclude list, but if >>> the contents changed to be non-trivial, then we'd need a license >>> anyway, so it's safer to add the license, and each of these file >>> formats supports license comments. >>> >>> >>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/application/contracts/contracts/red/mylib/myjs.js >>> >>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/pool/resources/test1.js >>> >>> impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/pool/resources/test.js >>> >>> impl/src/test/resources/META-INF/contracts/yellow/javax.faces.contract.xml >>> impl/src/test/resources/META-INF/contracts/yellow/mylib/myjs.js >>> impl/src/test/resources/META-INF/contracts/blue/javax.faces.contract.xml >>> impl/src/test/resources/META-INF/contracts/blue/mylib/myjs.js >>> >>> These files needs to be put in the rat exclusions section as I'm >>> fairly certain they do not support having a license in them, and they >>> are trivial. >>> >>> >>> impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/javax.enterprise.inject.spi.Extension >>> >>> impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.spi.InjectionProvider >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > I was running the needed tasks to get the 2.2.3 release of Apache >>> > MyFaces core out. >>> > >>> > The artifacts passed the TCK test of Feb 2013 >>> > (jsftck-2.2_26-Feb-2013.zip). >>> > >>> > Please note that this vote concerns all of the following parts: >>> > 1. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.shared" v4.2.2 [1] >>> > 2. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.core" v2.2.3 [1] >>> > >>> > The artifacts were deployed on nexus repo [1] and to my private >>> > Apache account [3] for binary and source packages. >>> > >>> > The release notes could be found at [4]. >>> > >>> > Also the clirr test does not show binary incompatibilities with >>> > myfaces-api. >>> > >>> > Please take a look at the "2.2.3" artifacts and vote! >>> > >>> > Please note: This vote is "majority approval" with a minimum of three >>> > +1 votes (see [3]). >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------ >>> > [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits >>> > [ ] +0 >>> > [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released, >>> > and why.............. >>> > ------------------------------------------------ >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Leonardo Uribe >>> > >>> > [1] >>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemyfaces-1018/org/apache/myfaces/ >>> > >>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemyfaces-1017/org/apache/myfaces/ >>> > [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes >>> > [3] http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces223binsrc >>> > [4] >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10600&version=12326543
