I'm really swamped right now. I hope to look at this soon, but given Leos positive comments below don't be afraid to proceed without my input.
Ross On 5 December 2011 23:18, Leo Simons <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Andy, all, > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: >> Everything ready (ish). >> >> Mentors - any time to help check all the necessary Apache process has been >> covered would be appreciated. > > Yay! Well done, that's looking really really good for a first (second?) RC. > I'm impressed :-). Having said that, let me try and get as annoying as > possible....gna gna gna gna. No seriously, I'm trying to be a hard ass > so that when you get to general@incubator there's either > * no surprises, or > * we have plenty of ammunition at the ready if it's needed... > > hope this helps.... > > cheers, > > Leo > > ZOMG so many jars! > ------------------ > I've looked at apache-jena-2.7.0-incubator.tar.gz and source releases only, > not at any of the convenience binary jars. Inspecting how the releases are > produced that normally gives me some reasonable confidence all the other files > are also ok. "Reasonable" since, well, I'm never *completely* comfortable > with maven ;-) > > If someone could provide me with some instructions for how to reproduce all > those jars from the source code then I can use that to satisfy myself I > understand what is in them. If not, well, *I* am not going to +1 those since > it's too much work to check all those jars by hand. > > I have also _not_ tested things work well with maven since that probably > requires more studying of maven docs than I feel like doing. Fortunately we > seem to have critical mass of maven mavens around here so I'll try and stick > to my ignorance! > > Test's 'n tools matter! (?) > --------------------------- > Here are some legal issues for jena-core-2.7.0-incubating-source-release.zip: > * the data files in src-examples/data/, vocabularies/ and testing/ do > generally > not have license information. Some have statements such as > # (c) Copyright 2004, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP > # All rights reserved. > What is the license situation for all these files? Unless it interferes with > testing, there should probably be license headers in these files explaining > their status. If any of these files are differently-licensed that should be > indicated as appropriate. > If these files can't have license headers then there should probably be files > explaining that in these directories along with a statement as to the details > of their licensing. > * tools-lib/java2html.jar seems to originate from > http://www.java2html.de/ > which is licensed either GPL or CPL. Per > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b > this file needs an "appropriate label". > * tools-lib/rdf-html.jar seems to be a file that was built quite a while ago > from jena source code. Where is the source code for that file? It should > probably be part of the distribution? > > I think these above issues should be addressed one way or another. > > Relentless nitpicking > --------------------- > And then what follows now are a bunch of tiny small suggestions that would > absolutely not prevent me voting +1, but that I wrote down since you might > like > the feedback and/or want to clean things up while doing all this release > stuff: > > Download area > * it was not clear to me at first where to get the source release. In fact > I thought I was downloading the source release when I downloaded the main > tarball > * slightly surprised there's no .tar.gz for the sources, as an unixy end user > I prefer those for irrational reasons > * you should probably explain (or point to explanation for) gpg verification > in README at > http://people.apache.org/~andy/proto-dist/ > see http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/#sig as example > * the most popular apache projects have a CHANGES or RELEASE_NOTES file in the > dist area > see examples at > http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/CHANGES_2.3.15 > http://www.apache.org/dist/ant/RELEASE-NOTES-apache-ant-1.8.2.html > http://www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-7/v7.0.23/RELEASE-NOTES > http://www.apache.org/dist/lucene/java/3.5.0/changes-3.5.0/Changes.html > this is absolutely not required (AFAIK) but you may want to consider doing it > as a convenience for users (note one advantage of having them hear instead of > or as well as on the website is that these files get mirrored out) > > apache-jena-2.7.0-incubator.tar.gz > * README has a word coppied which obviously should be copied > * README points at http://incubator.apache.org/jena/getting_started/ which is > empty > * ReleaseNotes-Jena.txt goes up to 2.6.5 but the release is 2.7.0, I'd expect > to learn what's changed with 2.7.0. > * Similarly, ReleaseNotes-ARQ.txt goes up to 2.8.9 but the release is 2.9.0. > > apache-jena-2.7.0-incubating-source-release.zip > * I don't like apache-jena-2.7.0-incubating-source-release.zip. I downloaded > a .zip, opened it up, found a BUILD file, which directed me to svn first and > then to manually download a bunch more zips. Then there's unzipping those, > having maven download the internet so it can run itself, etc. I got > pretty impatient halfway through. > * BUILD refers to a module jena-zip (to `mvn package`) that doesn't actually > exist, this should point at itself > * `mvn package` produces a ton of warnings such as > [WARNING] Cannot include project artifact: > org.apache.jena:apache-jena:pom:2.7.0-incubating; > it doesn't have an associated file or directory. > [WARNING] Entry: > apache-jena-2.7.0-incubating/javadoc-core/com/hp/hpl > /jena/assembler/class-use/BadObjectException.html > longer than 100 characters. > [WARNING] Resulting tar file can only be processed successfully by > GNU compatible tar commands > which I assume are either "normal" or because I have an old maven. It does > build 'something' in the end :-) > > jena-top-0-incubating-source-release.zip > * what a weird version number :) > > jena-core-2.7.0-incubating-source-release.zip > * see comment above about release notes > * INSTALL.txt talks about jars that don't exist and docs that don't exist. > It reads as if it's written for an older binary release? > * `ant build.xml` fails for me with > [javac] .../hpl/jena/util/Metadata.java:28: package org.slf4j > does not exist > [javac] import org.slf4j.Logger; > [snip many more import errors] > [javac] 100 errors > [javac] 13 warnings > > BUILD FAILED > ..../build.xml:165: Compile failed; see the compiler error output > for details > I would guess you just want to remove build.xml? > * readme.html redirects to doc/readme.html which does not exist. It should > probably just be removed? > * `mvn clean install` gives me this warning: > [WARNING] > [WARNING] Some problems were encountered while building the effective > model for org.apache.jena:jena-core:jar:2.7.0-incubating > [WARNING] 'version' contains an expression but should be a constant. > @ org.apache.jena:jena-core:${ver.jena}, > ..../pom.xml, line 27, column 12 > [WARNING] > [WARNING] It is highly recommended to fix these problems because they > threaten the stability of your build. > [WARNING] > [WARNING] For this reason, future Maven versions might no longer > support building such malformed projects. > [WARNING] > I imagine this could be maven complaining because I didn't update it for > a year. You may want to specify minimum supported maven version or something > like that? > (...) > And then it fails because I should've build iri first. After that (see > below), I thought a test was hanging but it was just that it was doing 10k > tests without any console output. And then it built :-) > > jena-iri-0.9.0-incubating-source-release.zip > * `ant build.xml` fails with > BUILD FAILED > ..../build.xml:32: Directory does not exist: ..../doc/javadoc > I'd consider removing build.xml. > * get same mvn [WARNING] as above, but it doesn't seem to matter > > jena-arq-2.9.0-incubating-source-release.zip > * README.txt points at doc/ a few times but doc/ does not exist > * get same mvn [WARNING] as above, but it doesn't seem to matter -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
