Hi Leo, Thanks for taking a look. Some comments in-line:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Leo Simons <m...@leosimons.com> wrote: > Yo. Looking pretty cool! Sorry, but, few tidbits inline... > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas L Gallardo > <nlgal...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> The Wink community voted on and approved the release of Apache Wink 1.0. We >> would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC for this >> release. >> >> Podling vote thread: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/wink-...@incubator.apache.org/msg02060.html >> >> The Maven staging area is at: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/ > > You're not going to get a +1 from me on all those artifacts - its way > too much work for me to look through all of them [1]. I looked just at > the distributions... > >> The distributions are in: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/wink-staging-002/org/apache/wink/apache-wink/1.0-incubating/ > > The source release has a LICENSE and a NOTICE file that indicates it > contains a bunch of stuff it does not actually contain. AFAICS it > should simply have a LICENSE that is just the Apache License and a > NOTICE file that has just our standard license header. I think you're suggesting a different LICENSE/NOTICE for source versus binary distributions. I did some random checking looking at some source versus binary Apache project distributions (incubator and non-incubator) and as far as I can tell, they kept their same LICENSE and NOTICE files even though they were not re-distributing the dependency binaries in the source archive. Don't mean to say we should just follow the crowd, but I don't think this is standard practice unless another thread has a viewpoint on this. > The NOTICE file for the binary release should include only those > notices that are actually required by the included library > dependencies, and they should reproduce the exact text of those > notices. For example, the slf4j notice line should not be there since > slf4j does not require it. I see varying degrees of attribution to slf4j in other Apache (incubating and non-incubating) projects (some have none, some have a line). The slf4j line was kept from the Wink 0.1 release. IMHO, this is not a release blocker, but we can remove it in a future release if it is the right thing to do. > cheers, > > Leo > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
