Thanks a lot for the detailed review of the distros, Niall !
I will comment on specific points below, but in light of Niall's feedback I am proposing: a) We close this vote, and declare it unsuccessful b) We apply suggested fixes (again, specific comments below) and recreate the svn tag c) We vote again on new proposed artifacts with these fixes (and these fixes only) This means folks who have reviewed the artifacts will need to do so again, sorry for the inconvenience. Any objections to this plan? On 1/4/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just noticed another thing - theres some JavaScript files which are being distributed as part of the Cobertura documentation (sortabletable.js, stringbuilder.js and customsorttypes.js) which have two different licenses (GPL, plus others). Looks to me like there should at least be an attribution in the NOTICE.txt - at a minimum I think you need to review whether its OK to re-distribute these since users will be using that software if they look at the Cobertura documentation. IMO it would be better if they were excluded from the distros altogether.
<snip/> OK, with that information, IMO, we should remove the cobertura plugin completely for v1.0.4. We can discuss a suitable test coverage plugin to add later, but as things stand, it seems to be mostly broken [1],[2] in the current build anyway (we do have some tests for these modules actually, contrary to what these report says). [1] http://shale.apache.org/shale-core/cobertura/index.html [2] http://shale.apache.org/shale-clay/cobertura/index.html (more comments below ...)
Niall On 1/4/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A couple of nitpicks > > 1) I ran the rat tool on the framework distro, after removing the docs > directory (which highlighted a load of generated files) there were a > few missing license headers. Patch available here: > https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-384 >
<snap/> I will fix this (assigned SHALE-384 to me already).
> Also there are two Sun licensed files included in the distro in > shale-tiger's resources: > web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd > web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd > > Are we authorised to re-distribute these files? >
<snip/> Craig is probably the best person here to answer this (though others may know as well).
> 2) None of the shale jar files contain the usual manifest entries such as: > Extension-Name > Specification-Title > Specification-Vendor > Specification-Version > Implementation-Title > Implementation-Vendor > Implementation-Version > Implementation-Vendor-Id > > I've attached a patch for the pom to include these to the above JIRA ticket >
<snap/> I maintained the inertia from previous releases regarding the manifests, in hindsight, shouldn't have. Thanks again for all the patches Niall. -Rahul
> Niall >
<snip/>
