On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Neil Griffin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Woonsan, > > I don't think that I have the administrative privileges to fix the staging > repository visibility problem you encountered. > > But thank you for your careful observations. Regarding the licensing, the > Apache 2.0 License is specified in the pom.xml descriptor of each archetype: > > <license> > <name>Apache License, Version 2.0</name> > <url>http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0</url> > </license> > > Also, the archetype JAR artifacts contain the text of the Apache 2.0 License > in the META-INF/LICENSE file. > > The reason why license "headers" are not present in files like > HelloWorldPortlet.java is because archetype files are essentially templates > that will be used by the "mvn archetype:generate" command to create a new > project. The developer would then be free to apply whatever license they > want to their newly generated portlet project.
It's totally fine not to have license headers in archetype-generated files like HelloWorldPortlet.java. My concerns were at these files, which are the archetype source itself, not generated ones, for instance: - pom.xml - src/main/resources/META-INF/maven/archetype-metadata.xml - src/main/resources/META-INF/maven/archetype.xml I think those three files must have license headers. > > Regarding log4j, I would be happy to migrate to the SLF4J API in a future > dot release. Cool! > > Please let me know whether or not I have addressed your concerns to your > satisfaction. Without proper license headers in those three files, I don't think that's qualified for a proper Apache release. Sometimes we miss license headers in some source files unintentionally in a bigger project, which might be excused, but in this case, it's obvious that we totally forgot adding the headers in the whole project, IMHO. Regards, Woonsan > > > Best Regards, > > Neil > > > On 4/24/17 11:46 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Neil Griffin >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Apache Portals Pluto Team and community, >>> >>> I have staged a release candidate for the new Apache Portals Pluto Maven >>> Archetypes 3.0.0 release, >>> which includes the following two artifacts: >>> >>> <groupId>org.apache.portals.pluto.archetype</groupId> >>> <artifactId>bean-portlet-archetype</artifactId> >>> <packaging>maven-archetype</packaging> >>> >>> <groupId>org.apache.portals.pluto.archetype</groupId> >>> <artifactId>generic-portlet-archetype</artifactId> >>> <packaging>maven-archetype</packaging> >>> >>> Please review the release candidate which is available from the following >>> maven staging repository: >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheportals-1016 >> >> >> This link doesn't work for me. I managed to find the staging repo at >> https://repository.apache.org/#stagingRepositories. >> It shows "404 - Repository "orgapacheportals-1016 (staging: open)" >> [id=orgapacheportals-1016] exists but is not exposed" when clicked on, >> regardless whether or not I signed in https://repository.apache.org/. >> Does anyone know the reason? >> >>> >>> This vote is open for the next 72 hours. >>> >>> Please cast your vote: >> >> >> I'm not sure if it is desirable to release this. When I downloaded the >> bean-portlet-archetype-3.0.0-source-release.zip from the Nexus, I >> could hardly find source files with Apache License header [1]. Most >> files are missing the license header. >> Wouldn't it be more desirable to correct this issue first? >> >> And, one minor thing to remark is that the archetype is using log4j >> v1, neither slf4j nor log4j v2. AFAIK, pluto project itself and its >> submodules such as container have used slf4j as logging API and log4j >> as a default binding. Not a major, but just something to consider >> later perhaps... >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Woonsan >> >> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers >> >>> >>> [ ] +1 for Release >>> [ ] 0 for Don't care >>> [ ] -1 Don't release (do provide a reason then) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Neil >> >> >
