On Aug 21, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > >> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use >> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases. > > When the option to be "fair" exists, "fair" is great! > > With regards to my own vote, I'm going to try to apply Jukka's criteria on > "rights": > > http://markmail.org/message/jtj27kdlhvgocexg > > Personally I'm fine with things like missing license headers or partially > incomplete license metadata (which sounds like is the case here), as long > as those are just omissions that don't fundamentally affect our rights (or > those of downstream users) to distribute the releases and as long as > there's a commitment to fix such issues in time for the next release. > > Extraneous information in the NOTICE file imposes a burden on some downstream > distributors and consumers. Thee is almost certainly room for improvement in > the AOO NOTICE file, and we have made some progress towards a consensus on > exactly what ought to be in NOTICE since the first incubating release of AOO > -- though there is also considerable room for improvement in the ASF > documentation with regards to NOTICE. :) > > However, is there anything about the NOTICE file in this AOO release candidate > which affects _rights_, either our own or those of downstream users? I've > looked through the file, and if that's the case, I don't see it. If sebb > thinks a respin is merited, that's his call, and his review is a welcome > contribution. However, considering how much effort it takes to spin up an AOO > release, the good faith and substantial effort invested by the podling in > assembling the NOTICE file in the first place, and the good record of the AOO > podling in incorporating suggestions, my opinion is that a promise to > incorporate any NOTICE revisions into trunk suffices and that a new RC is not > required.
Thanks. > In contrast, I am more concerned about extra files that were apparently > inadvertently committed and were not caught by either the primary mechanism of > PPMC members watching the commits list Checking three of these jars - there were all part of the initial svn commit - r1162288 - Initial import of the old OOo hg repository tip revision. > or by the last line of defense of > running a RAT report prior to rolling the release. If files which are > incompatible with our licensing end up in a distribution, that has the > potential to affect _rights_. And what with AOO's history, there is a big > target painted on the project and there is a conspicuous need to maintain > absolute control over what ends up in releases. Thanks for your answer to Jürgen and your +1 to release. > It looks like the late audit has revealed that those files are OK, but it > feels like we might have dodged a bullet. Yes, but the shotgun was loaded with salt, so it just stings a little ;-) Regards, Dave > > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
