On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:23 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27/01/2014 07:41, Alan Cabrera wrote: >> Sorry about the tardy review. Great job on wrapping up the release! A few >> small points: >> >> I think that these need an ASL: >> >> odata2-sample/cars-annotation-archetype/src/main/resources/META-INF/maven/archetype-metadata.xml >> odata2-sample/cars-annotation-archetype/src/test/resources/projects/basic/archetype.properties >> odata2-sample/cars-service-archetype/src/main/resources/META-INF/maven/archetype-metadata.xml >> odata2-sample/cars-service-archetype/src/test/resources/projects/basic/archetype.properties >> >> We should probably update the rat configuration. >> >> On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:39 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> having in mind the release check list at [1], everything looks fine to me >>> but: >>> >>> (1) NOTICE files anomalies: >>> (a) in some artifacts (source-release, for example) "Copyright 2013" >>> instead of "Copyright 2013-2014" is shown; >> This should probably be fixed. IMO, the copyright should simply be removed. > > [2] explicitly states > > The top of each NOTICE file should include the following text, suitably > modified to reflect the product name and year(s) of distribution of the > current and past versions of the product: > > Apache [PRODUCT_NAME] > Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation > > This product includes software developed at > The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). > > Why you think the copyright should be removed? Good point. I am speaking of the Java code and test files that have the copyright. They don’t need it, IIUC. IMO, this needs to be fixed. >>> (b) in some artifacts (again source-release) the file content have spaces >>> at the line beginning (see [2] for appropriate formatting) >> This can probably wait for the next release; good to have but not required. >> >>> (c) in binary artifacts (as jpa, but also some WAR files in dist) the file >>> do not contain attributions (e.g. third-party notices for bundled >>> libraries, see again [2]). >> The third-party notices that should be in the NOTICE file are only those >> that are required by the thrid-parties, otherwise they are left out. Are >> their any that mean this stricter requirement? > > Sure: > > olingo-odata2-dist-jpa-incubating-1.1.0-RC01-jpa.zip and > org.eclipse.persistence-javax.persistence contain > > javax.ws.rs-javax.ws.rs-api-2.0-m10.jar - CDDL, notice is required according > to paragraph 3.3 of such license > org.eclipse.persistence-javax.persistence-2.0.5.jar - EPL, notice is required Paragraph 3.3 seems to refer to modifications of the source code, not usage of or dependency on the source code. > Then there are the WAR artifacts from > olingo-odata2-dist-ref-incubating-1.1.0-RC01-ref.zip: > > olingo-odata2-annotation-processor-ref-web-incubating-1.1.0-RC01.war > olingo-odata2-jpa-processor-ref-web-incubating-1.1.0-RC01.war > olingo-odata2-ref-web-incubating-1.1.0-RC01.war > > I actually don't know if dist policies should be applied also to these WAR > files which are actually included in a release artifact > (olingo-odata2-dist-ref-incubating-1.1.0-RC01-ref.zip) rather than being > release artifacts themselves. > If so there are even more anomalies out there. Anything that we publish should contain the NOTICE. So, this includes WARs. > Anyway, I believe these NOTICE oddities are *blocker* for release - at least > for what I've learned in the months I've spent with Syncope at incubator; > anyway if I am the only one believing so, I have no problems in providing my > +-0. IIUC, the NOTICE file is fine. I don’t think that you’ve pointed out any real requirements by third-parties, imho. >>> (2) DISCLAIMER file content is not everywhere the same, and in general >>> don't comply with [3], unless there has been some kind of approval from >>> Incubator IPMC I am not aware of >> They all look the same to me. Rewording it to match what’s in [3] can >> probably wait for the next release; good to have but not required. > > They *are* different: > > olingo-odata2-dist-jpa-incubating-1.1.0-RC01-jpa.zip says > > olingo-odata2-dist-jpa-incubating is an effort undergoing incubation at the > Apache Software > Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator PMC. > [...] > > olingo-odata2-dist-lib-incubating-1.1.0-RC01-lib.zip says > > olingo-odata2-dist-lib-incubating is an effort undergoing incubation at the > Apache Software > Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator PMC. > [...] > > olingo-odata2-dist-ref-incubating-1.1.0-RC01-ref.zip says > > olingo-odata2-dist-ref-incubating is an effort undergoing incubation at the > Apache Software > Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator PMC. > [...] > > olingo-odata2-parent-incubating-1.1.0-RC01-source-release.zip says > (correctly): > > Apache Olingo is an effort undergoing incubation at the Apache Software > Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator PMC. > > Anyway, as said, this is not blocker for the release. Wow, that’s weird. How did the text change take place? Agreed, not a blocker for the release. Regards, Alan
