Regarding Apache RAT. I think we have that covered already. RAT is run if you specify the apache-release maven profile, and therefore is run automatically when we make a release. You can run it standalone using
mvn -Papache-release verify As Ted notes, a few exclusions are needed. The top-level pom.xml contains those exclusions, and RAT passes. Julian On Oct 12, 2014, at 10:39 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just looked a bit a this release and I have a few questions. I am > uncertain about how these issues should lead to a vote, but would tend > toward saying that this is OK for a first incubator release on condition > that these issues should be rectified in subsequent releases. > > I would appreciate guidance from Marvin or other folk experienced in these > matters about this. > > First, the signing key is present in SVN, but has not been uploaded to the > standard key-servers, nor has it been signed by anyone. I don't think that > this has been made a failing criterion for releases yet, but it does appear > that Apache is moving towards requiring a web of trust around public keys > used for signing. It would be good to rectify this by uploading a signed > key. > > Then, there is a DEPENDENCIES file which contains licensing information for > dependencies that are not included in the distribution. That DEPENDENCIES > file contains information on many of the dependencies, but not all. I > think that this file be deleted or made whole. > > Also, I ran [mvn rat:check] and noted that it failed. The reason for the > failure is relatively benign in that the objections are for files such as > git.properties, some mark-down files and a file containing the textual name > of a class which do not have a recognizable license. Adding the following > to the top-level pom will suppress these messages and allow rat to complete > successfully: > > <plugin> > <groupId>org.apache.rat</groupId> > <artifactId>apache-rat-plugin</artifactId> > <executions> > <execution> > <id>rat-checks</id> > <phase>validate</phase> > <goals> > <goal>check</goal> > </goals> > </execution> > </executions> > <configuration> > <excludeSubProjects>false</excludeSubProjects> > <excludes> > <exclude>**/*.md</exclude> > <exclude>**/*.json</exclude> > <exclude>**/*.parquet</exclude> > <exclude>**/META-INF/services/java.sql.Driver</exclude> > <exclude>**/git.properties</exclude> > <exclude>**/target/rat.txt</exclude> > </excludes> > </configuration> > </plugin> > > On a more positive note, I reviewed the NOTICE and LICENSE and they are in > order for a pure apache source release that embeds no externally licensed > code. These would have to be different in a binary release, of course, if > convenience jars are included, but there is no binary release at this time > so that is not yet an issue. > > > > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Julian Hyde <julianh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> +0 (binding) Will change to +1 once PPMC vote is clarified. >>> >>> I checked: >>> - vote may need another +1 (see below) >>> - hashes and signatures correct >>> - artefacts have incubating in name >>> - DISCLAIMER exists >>> - LICENSE and NOTICE correct >>> - all source files have Apache headers >>> - no binary files in source package >>> - can compile from source >>> - tests pass >>> >>> Looking at the vote thread there is: >>> +2 binding >>> +3 unknown >>> +3 non binding >>> >>> So I'm not 100% sure if the release has the 3 required +1 votes from the >> PPMC. Can you confirm that this is the case. For next release could you >> summarise the vote result via a [VOTE][RESULT] email. >> >> Here is a link to the [VOTE] [RESULT] email. I sent the email very soon >> after the close of the PPMC vote but I did not include a link in the IPMC >> vote because after 2 hours it had still not appeared on >> mail-archives.apache.org and I ran out of patience. >> >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-optiq-dev/201410.mbox/%3CCAMCtmeLhG5Wbc%2BxGjaZouM39_OLEUJF3Jz%3D4fq_bEG0DcsLpuQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E >> >>> Also any reason why the project seem to be hosted outside of Apache? [1] >> >> Is that link in the release, or did you find it via google? I don't think >> we still link to that site from the source code. Correct me if I'm wrong. I >> haven't taken the old site down because the new site still doesn't have >> necessary stuff like javadoc. >> >>> The team page list no members. [2] >> >> We're not trying to keep the old site up to date. The effort to create a >> new site https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPTIQ-355 is blocked >> because we want to transition from CMS to svnpubsub when we rename the site >> from optiq.incubator.apache.org to calcite.incubator.apache.org >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8418. >> >> Julian >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
