On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Simon Laws <simonsl...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Simon Laws <simonsl...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 7:48 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Please review and vote on RC1 of the SCA 2.0-M5.1 release. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a minor relese based on 2.0-M5 and provides fixes to running >>>>>> Tuscany applications in Google AppEngine environment and other minor >>>>>> fixes to remove compliance tests run from part of the source distro >>>>>> build. >>>>>> >>>>>> The distribution artifacts, RAT reports, and Maven staging repository >>>>>> are available for review at: >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende/tuscany/2.0-M5.1-RC1/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The release tag is at: >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/tags/2.0-M5.1-RC1/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is my +1 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ping ? The M5.1 has a very small delta from M5 and should be a easy >>>>> review. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I will try to get to this today, just have been too busy to spend time >>>> on it so far sorry. >>>> >>>> ...ant >>>> >>> Sorry Luciano. Only just got to this. Will take a look now. >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> -- >>> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org >>> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com >>> >> >> - Rat looks OK >> >> - Build of source with clean repo initially failed with... >> >> Reason: POM 'org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-assembly-plugin' not found in >> reposi >> tory: Unable to download the artifact from any repository >> >> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-assembly-plugin:pom:2.2-beta-3 >> >> But it worked this morning when I retried. >> >> - Key signatures look good >> >> - I tried some samples. The READMEs still leave a lot to be desired. >> This isn't any worse than M5 however. We know we have to make a better >> fist of this, hence the re-org in trunk. >> >> - The samples build against the staged maven artifacts >> >> - In the bin distro LICENCE file we refer to tuscany-assembly-xsd.jar >> and tuscany-sca-api.jar without explicit version numbers. This has >> always been the case but I wonder if we should. I also note that we >> refer to tuscany-assembly-xsd-osoa in the LICENSE which is not present >> any more. >> >> - There are some odd things in the src distro LICENSE file (they were >> like this in M5 but I for one didn't spot them). >> >> The module itest/databindings/common isn't in the src distro >> >> The module definitions-xml isn't in the src distro >> >> The last section which starts with... >> >> ================= >> The module assembly-xsd includes XSD files under the following license: >> >> The modules >> >> binding-ws-xml >> databinding >> databinding-axiom >> databinding-jaxb >> databinding-json >> databinding-sdo >> databinding-sdo-axiom >> databinding-xmlbeans >> interface-wsdl-xml >> >> Include the ipo.xsd and address.xsd information from the XML Schema Primer >> ================= >> >> It looks like the "The module assembly-xsd includes XSD files under >> the following license:" is just a cut and paste as this appears in >> front of the previous license. >> >> Some of the listed modules have been removed or merged with other >> modules. Some modules are missing. I believe the list should read. >> >> binding-ws >> databinding >> databinding-axiom >> databinding-jaxb >> databinding-jaxb-axiom >> databinding-json >> databinding-sdo >> databinding-sdo-axiom >> interface-wsdl >> >> I'd like to get the license files fixed before I vote to release. >> >> Regards >> > > As these are all present in 2.0-M5, do you really think this is a MUST > before we release 2.0-M5.1 ? > > -- > Luciano Resende > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >
Well the informal rule I've tried to apply so far in these kinds of cases is 1 - if we mention things that aren't in the distro then it's not great but I could live with it until the next distro 2 - if we don't mention things that are in the distro then that's not so good. There are several things that come under category 1 but I could live with them binding-ws, databinding-jaxb-axiom, interface-wsdl come under category 2 w.r.t that last license. The problem with this is where do you stop. Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
