Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
On 6/20/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/20/06, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'll attend the Dublin conference, getting in Tuesday late morning. I'm interested in contributing, especially to the sample incubator project template in the area of template web site and template build scripts based on maven. I haven't seen much on these topics recently, so I guess I'll check in to hackathon on Tuesday and see how I can help. great :-) noel has a tutorial all day tuesday and some other members also have stuff planned for Tuesday. (which is why monday was selected.) but monday may well turn out to have a foundation/infrastructure focus. but i'll be around and working on documentation throughout the hackathon. tuesday may turn out to be a better day for incubator related documentation. i will be working on release management this afternoon (after lunch). feel free to drop in. i'll be on a table at the right hand side of the hackathon. - robert
Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
On 6/20/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/7/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was my plan as well; so I'm pretty flexible. I guess I'd probably prefer not to schedule anything formal on Monday morning, since some folks may still be getting in. How does Monday afternoon work? Works for me -- also probably works okay for those in U.S. helping remotely. on IRC we came with (provisionally) 3pm Dublin time (1400 UTC) for the more focussed session i plan to produce something more definite and post it to committers later today I'll be in Dublin in the mid-morning. I'll plan (as I've also heard Robert say) to be working on docs most of Monday and Tuesday with whomever is there. It sounds like that will likely include Robert, Justin, Noel, Sanjiva, possibly Ross, and me. And then, there's Jean, Eddie, and David Crossley who have offered to help remotely if possible. I'm not sure exactly how this remote thing will work, but I think it would be worth trying to see if getting everyone's attention on docs around the same time helps efficiently divide the work up and offer faster feedback across docs. there are number of interested people in Dublin late afternoon/early evening Sunday. so we'll probably meet up at the hotel for planning/preparation/preliminary work. those who aren't travelling can IRC. if there is enough interest we could book a room somewhere one evening but there are events till late more days... - robert
Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
On 6/20/06, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'll attend the Dublin conference, getting in Tuesday late morning. I'm interested in contributing, especially to the sample incubator project template in the area of template web site and template build scripts based on maven. I haven't seen much on these topics recently, so I guess I'll check in to hackathon on Tuesday and see how I can help. great :-) noel has a tutorial all day tuesday and some other members also have stuff planned for Tuesday. (which is why monday was selected.) but monday may well turn out to have a foundation/infrastructure focus. but i'll be around and working on documentation throughout the hackathon. tuesday may turn out to be a better day for incubator related documentation. - robert
Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
On 6/7/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was my plan as well; so I'm pretty flexible. I guess I'd probably prefer not to schedule anything formal on Monday morning, since some folks may still be getting in. How does Monday afternoon work? Tuesday is pretty much full up already on my calendar... -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
On 6/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/7/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was my plan as well; so I'm pretty flexible. I guess I'd probably prefer not to schedule anything formal on Monday morning, since some folks may still be getting in. How does Monday afternoon work? Works for me -- also probably works okay for those in U.S. helping remotely. I'll be in Dublin in the mid-morning. I'll plan (as I've also heard Robert say) to be working on docs most of Monday and Tuesday with whomever is there. It sounds like that will likely include Robert, Justin, Noel, Sanjiva, possibly Ross, and me. And then, there's Jean, Eddie, and David Crossley who have offered to help remotely if possible. I'm not sure exactly how this remote thing will work, but I think it would be worth trying to see if getting everyone's attention on docs around the same time helps efficiently divide the work up and offer faster feedback across docs. Cliff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
Hi, I'll attend the Dublin conference, getting in Tuesday late morning. I'm interested in contributing, especially to the sample incubator project template in the area of template web site and template build scripts based on maven. I haven't seen much on these topics recently, so I guess I'll check in to hackathon on Tuesday and see how I can help. Craig On Jun 19, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote: On 6/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/7/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was my plan as well; so I'm pretty flexible. I guess I'd probably prefer not to schedule anything formal on Monday morning, since some folks may still be getting in. How does Monday afternoon work? Works for me -- also probably works okay for those in U.S. helping remotely. I'll be in Dublin in the mid-morning. I'll plan (as I've also heard Robert say) to be working on docs most of Monday and Tuesday with whomever is there. It sounds like that will likely include Robert, Justin, Noel, Sanjiva, possibly Ross, and me. And then, there's Jean, Eddie, and David Crossley who have offered to help remotely if possible. I'm not sure exactly how this remote thing will work, but I think it would be worth trying to see if getting everyone's attention on docs around the same time helps efficiently divide the work up and offer faster feedback across docs. Cliff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
On 5/6/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, let me put it this way: I'm committed to sit at a table for at least eight hours during the two hackathon days and make some progress on this stuff with Robert and whomever else can make it. We should also be able to have some live collaboration over irc with folks who aren't able to make it to Dublin. Count me in as well for a 'docathon' - I'll be in Dublin too. Do we have a preferred date / time that we should collectively block out that also works reasonably well for our remote participants? At this point, I'm *mostly* open - but my schedule is getting more and more committed as we approach the 'Con. I'm also up for finding a comfy pub one evening and whipping out the laptops too. ;-) Why doesn't this documentation make any sense? We were on our ninth round of Guinness by then. Oh. Hey, everyone else at the table said +1. But, they thought I asked about another round... Uh-uh. Wheee... -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
On 6/7/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/7/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/6/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, let me put it this way: I'm committed to sit at a table for at least eight hours during the two hackathon days and make some progress on this stuff with Robert and whomever else can make it. We should also be able to have some live collaboration over irc with folks who aren't able to make it to Dublin. Count me in as well for a 'docathon' - I'll be in Dublin too. great :-) Do we have a preferred date / time that we should collectively block out that also works reasonably well for our remote participants? At this point, I'm *mostly* open - but my schedule is getting more and more committed as we approach the 'Con. nope (I will be around most of the hackathon working on documentation so will be available for ad hoc doc) but a more focussed docathon block sounds good. That was my plan as well; so I'm pretty flexible. I guess I'd probably prefer not to schedule anything formal on Monday morning, since some folks may still be getting in. Cliff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
On 5/6/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/24/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: really need to try to find time to get to grips with the documentation on the foundation and incubator sites. been thinking about making this a goal of mine for infrathon/hackthon in dublin (though sorting out my flights is another job i should have done but haven't). Let's do it. We've been talking about the documentation problem for years. We've made a good bit of progress every once in a while during those years, but I bet we could make a whole lot of progress if we forced ourselves to all get together and dedicate 4-16 hours on it during the hackathon. Noel, Jean, and a few others have also talked about working on docs lately; I've wanted to help, but haven't made the time to work on anything not directly related to legal stuff. So, let me put it this way: I'm committed to sit at a table for at least eight hours during the two hackathon days and make some progress on this stuff with Robert and whomever else can make it. We should also be able to have some live collaboration over irc with folks who aren't able to make it to Dublin. sounds like a good plan :-) unless anyone beats me to it, i'll post something announcement-esque to somewhere appropriate (maybe community and/or site, or possibly an announcements list) BTW i've started on a little project already (inspired by a comment David Reid made months ago). i'm going through and add indexes to the existing documents (using a style sheet to speed things up). i hope to add a detailed index to either the main dev page or linked from it. the index will be generated using xslt to make it easy to maintain. - robert
Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 11:44 -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote: So, let me put it this way: I'm committed to sit at a table for at least eight hours during the two hackathon days and make some progress on this stuff with Robert and whomever else can make it. We should also be able to have some live collaboration over irc with folks who aren't able to make it to Dublin. I plan to be in Dublin .. please count me in too. This is a critical area of improvement for ASF and it'll be my pleasure to help. I'm not 100% certain I will be in Dublin, but if I am you can be sure I will be present at the docathon. Ross - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
Jean T. Anderson wrote: Count me in as a remote hackathon participant (I won't be going to Dublin). Yep, if there is a way that i can help remotely, then i will. -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
Count me in as a remote hackathon participant (I won't be going to Dublin). -jean Cliff Schmidt wrote: On 4/24/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: really need to try to find time to get to grips with the documentation on the foundation and incubator sites. been thinking about making this a goal of mine for infrathon/hackthon in dublin (though sorting out my flights is another job i should have done but haven't). Let's do it. We've been talking about the documentation problem for years. We've made a good bit of progress every once in a while during those years, but I bet we could make a whole lot of progress if we forced ourselves to all get together and dedicate 4-16 hours on it during the hackathon. Noel, Jean, and a few others have also talked about working on docs lately; I've wanted to help, but haven't made the time to work on anything not directly related to legal stuff. So, let me put it this way: I'm committed to sit at a table for at least eight hours during the two hackathon days and make some progress on this stuff with Robert and whomever else can make it. We should also be able to have some live collaboration over irc with folks who aren't able to make it to Dublin. Thanks for the inspiration, Robert. Cliff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dublin Docathon (was Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix)
On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 11:44 -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote: So, let me put it this way: I'm committed to sit at a table for at least eight hours during the two hackathon days and make some progress on this stuff with Robert and whomever else can make it. We should also be able to have some live collaboration over irc with folks who aren't able to make it to Dublin. I plan to be in Dublin .. please count me in too. This is a critical area of improvement for ASF and it'll be my pleasure to help. Sanjiva. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Release Documentation [WAS Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix]
On 4/26/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:40:34AM -0600, Bruce Snyder wrote: On 4/21/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Leo Simons wrote: *sigh*. I feel like a broken record these days. Nowhere does any policy ever say you can do stuff which is not permitted by law or for which you have no license. To state the reverse in a policy would be rather, well, redundant. There is ample documentation out there on our websites (and more in the works) to help with complying with the law and various licenses. No, but the legal aspect isn't necessarily the concept looming largest in a developer's mind. So a simple checkbox on the page (I'll do it myself in a few minutes, if I figure out how to frob the site) to the effect of: 'Have the licences of any/all bundled code been identified and noted in the release? Has a NOTICE file been included that summarises them and their requirements where they differ from the Apache licence's? Have their requirements been met?' would, IMHO, be a goodness. Bingo! Ken hit the nail on the head!!! A checklist would do wonders for podlings and preparing releases. Okidoki. But checklists are scary, since they could provide a false sense of security and have a tendency not to be updated or kept (keeping the status files for podlings up-to-date seems very hard). +1 Note it should not be for podlings, it should be for all of the ASF. Cliff has been working on lots of this kind of stuff i've not created an ASF wide checklist since i believe that it would be risky: release managers really need to understand the issues rather than just tick boxes. IMO checklists work best at project level and contain a description of what each project expects and how their release process works. podlings really need to develop their own release policy and document it. creating an ASF guide aimed at new release managers might be a good idea, though. i had a think about this and i have come up with something that i do think would work: a index-style (with links into the ASF documentation) summary for the incubator project plus guides to best practice (which would include language specific material excluded from the ASF documentation). if there are no objections or ideas for improvement, i might start looking at some of this in the next week or two. - robert
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
On 4/21/06, Bruce Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/21/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Leo Simons wrote: James, dude, *sigh*. I feel like a broken record these days. Nowhere does any policy ever say you can do stuff which is not permitted by law or for which you have no license. To state the reverse in a policy would be rather, well, redundant. There is ample documentation out there on our websites (and more in the works) to help with complying with the law and various licenses. No, but the legal aspect isn't necessarily the concept looming largest in a developer's mind. So a simple checkbox on the page (I'll do it myself in a few minutes, if I figure out how to frob the site) to the effect of: 'Have the licences of any/all bundled code been identified and noted in the release? Has a NOTICE file been included that summarises them and their requirements where they differ from the Apache licence's? Have their requirements been met?' would, IMHO, be a goodness. Bingo! Ken hit the nail on the head!!! A checklist would do wonders for podlings and preparing releases. Even though I've been through the Incubator before, a lot has changed since that time. most of the questions raised are covered in the canonical documentation: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html. i'd hope that all release managers for podlings would spend the time required to read the existing release documentation and post questions on infrastructure or incubator general about anything which isn't covered. we really need documentation (at the foundation level) from which anyone can learn to perform ASF releases. IMO secondary documentation at the incubator level would be counterproductive if it encourages release managers to ignore the material on the foundation site. porting a good instruction to the foundation site list from jakarta, struts or ant has been considered before but most of the instructions concern language specific best practice rather than policy. there are a number of issues which are about understanding the issues rather than simply following a recipe. hence the FAQs rather than a list of instructions. what would be useful is a check list aimed at checkers of incubator releases. - robert
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
On 4/24/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/21/06, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Incidentally there are useful bits of documentation on performing releases in the documentation/wikis of various projects at Apache. I've hacked up a quick wiki page to collect them.. http://wiki.apache.org/general/ReleaseGuides the commons release guide is pretty comprehensive (for java, at least): http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases/ (who can't edit the wiki right now) I've updated it for you :) -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
On 4/24/06, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/24/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] most of the questions raised are covered in the canonical documentation: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html. i'd hope that all release managers for podlings would spend the time required to read the existing release documentation and post questions on infrastructure or incubator general about anything which isn't covered. Agreed - I made sure that the release section of the incubation process just links to that URL... http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases once i find a few cycles, i'll try to pull together a summary document for the incubator linking the to existing documentation we really need documentation (at the foundation level) from which anyone can learn to perform ASF releases. IMO secondary documentation at the incubator level would be counterproductive if it encourages release managers to ignore the material on the foundation site. Agreed - the wiki page I created was at the foundation level so we can easilly capture links to any useful other docs at Apache such as the Jakrata Commons stuff you mentioned. http://wiki.apache.org/general/ReleaseGuides cool. the wiki's great for capturing unofficial tips and best practice. would be a good to develop an incubator guide for new release managers and the wiki's probably the best place. really need to try to find time to get to grips with the documentation on the foundation and incubator sites. been thinking about making this a goal of mine for infrathon/hackthon in dublin (though sorting out my flights is another job i should have done but haven't). -robert
RE: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
Ken wrote: [I don't see] any notice concerning [bundled jar] IP and licensing terms. There is no NOTICE file. Some of these jars are apparently licensed under CPL or CDDL, which most definitely cannot be bundled without clear notice. - -1, at least until a proper and complete NOTICE file is included. Please note that Cliff Schmidt would be a good resource to help projects get their licensing structures in order. And this is not limited to projects in the Incubator. We know that *existing* ASF projects are going to have to revise their documentation, too. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
James Strachan wrote: FWIW now that the ActiveMQ build is fixed it should never again fail these incubator release requirements - though it did take quite a few attempts to get there. This is the first attempt at a milestone release of ServiceMix so its hardly surprising that one little thing was missed. Since a number of people, including yourself, are involved with both, I had expected the lessons learned from one to have already been applied to the other, so it is a bit frustrating to encounter the same issues. Thanks for correcting them. Right now there's a disclaimer in the README Thanks. I'll look again. If the Incubation disclaimer text was in the README when I looked before, I missed it. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
On 4/20/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:59:30PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: -1 Bill Stoddard is correct in his understanding of http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases. The fact that other people have voted +1 without verifying that the release adheres to Incubator policy is a bit disturbing, but that's why we have multiple sets of eyes on these things. More than a bit, if you ask me. People even asking for a vote for a release without a NOTICE file is like, seriously messed up. What is going on around here lately? Thanks for volunteering Leo to add details of the NOTICE file to the Incubator release policy :) -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
Hey Dan, I wrote a long-ish e-mail about all this, but I don't think its going to help anyone. So I apologize for any and all confusion. Concretely... On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 01:05:33AM -0400, Dan Diephouse wrote: I am really confused by the reaction to this. I don't see any reason to be puzzled or upset. I don't want to make this a bigger issue than it is, but: 1. The project is incubating and this is the first time its done an Apache release. There are a lot of check boxes that need to be checked to make Apache happy. Overlooking a NOTICE file that almost no one looks at doesn't seem like that big of a jump to me. I can understand why you don't see that, but that viewpoint should change. With an M1 release, I think everyone was a bit more worried whether the damn thing worked at all. As we move toward a .0 release things will certainly get more cleaned up. 2. Incubating release don't need to conform to Apache policy as far as I understand it. Only to whats outlined in the release section [1]. Thats why Roller can release with LGPL dependencies. So in this light, the NOTICE file shouldn't be a hold up, no? Only -incubator instead of -incubating can. Using LGPL dependencies is about policy. This is about what is legal. Besides complying with policy, you need to comply with the law, which involves complying with the terms and conditions of a variety of licenses. As an example, ServiceMix redistributes jars under an apache license which have NOTICEs applying to them. Thus the appropriate attributions *must* then be kept around (so says the license), so not having notices and stuff in place means a license breach, which is not at all about policy. Its illegal. As another example, CDDL-licensed things explicitly prohibit getting rid of *any* legal notices (which is common sense anyway). Doing illegal stuff can get us and our users sued. Hope that clarifies things. LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
James, dude, On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 07:15:48AM +0100, James Strachan wrote: On 4/20/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:59:30PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: -1 Bill Stoddard is correct in his understanding of http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases. The fact that other people have voted +1 without verifying that the release adheres to Incubator policy is a bit disturbing, but that's why we have multiple sets of eyes on these things. More than a bit, if you ask me. People even asking for a vote for a release without a NOTICE file is like, seriously messed up. What is going on around here lately? Thanks for volunteering Leo to add details of the NOTICE file to the Incubator release policy :) *sigh*. I feel like a broken record these days. Nowhere does any policy ever say you can do stuff which is not permitted by law or for which you have no license. To state the reverse in a policy would be rather, well, redundant. There is ample documentation out there on our websites (and more in the works) to help with complying with the law and various licenses. To give you an idea. I have volunteered to help with a less confusing contribution policy. You can find it at http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/contribution_policy.html I have also volunteered time and effort to help with a less confusing third party contribution policy, of which you can find a draft at http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html The result of these documents will be folded into the incubator policies as appropriate in due course (and I might very well be the person to take care of some of that), but we're not quite ready for any of that yet. Until that time, each and every project needs to figure it out on its own. I have previously written a whole bunch of documentation for different projects on how to do releases, eg, see some old info at http://wiki.apache.org/avalon/AvalonReleaseManagerHowto and I have also been helping out for several years now to get that kind of info on the central ASF website about this stuff, eg http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases which is referred to many, many times from the incubator website. The relevant section of that documentation (for this thread) is http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license which, I would think, is already quite clear. Thanks for volunteering to make it more clear. I wouldn't really know how. LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
On 4/21/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Leo Simons wrote: James, dude, *sigh*. I feel like a broken record these days. Nowhere does any policy ever say you can do stuff which is not permitted by law or for which you have no license. To state the reverse in a policy would be rather, well, redundant. There is ample documentation out there on our websites (and more in the works) to help with complying with the law and various licenses. No, but the legal aspect isn't necessarily the concept looming largest in a developer's mind. So a simple checkbox on the page (I'll do it myself in a few minutes, if I figure out how to frob the site) to the effect of: 'Have the licences of any/all bundled code been identified and noted in the release? Has a NOTICE file been included that summarises them and their requirements where they differ from the Apache licence's? Have their requirements been met?' would, IMHO, be a goodness. Bingo! Ken hit the nail on the head!!! A checklist would do wonders for podlings and preparing releases. Even though I've been through the Incubator before, a lot has changed since that time. Having been around the ASF since the Geronimo incubation began (August 2003), it was never clear to me why these policies were in place and now I know why - it's a legal issue. Until now that was never clear to me (I certainly understand that there are legal issues and there are many files required, but linking the two in my mind just didn't happen - maybe I'm at fault for not drawing the correct relation between the two). Ken is absolutely correct in noting that developers are not of the same mindset when cranking out a release as the folks who drafted the Incubator release policies. The main issue at hand is that the release requirements are spread all around in various documents which makes it tough to make sure every aspect has been fulfilled. In addition to these documents, I think a checklist would do wonders for smoothing the way for future podling projects and I'm certainly willing to help Ken flesh out just such a checklist. Furthermore, looking at other projects that have recently graduated is most definitely *not* a good way to find proper release examples as some don't even have a LICENSE file, let alone a NOTICE or even the word Incubator or Incubating in the release name. Developers always look for code examples to follow and incubation is no different. Pointing out a couple or three projects that have graduated, have met 100% of the requirements and actually are a good representation would help immensely. Being able to poke around a project that has been qualified by the Incubator PMC as having met all requirements would short circuit a lot of the frustrations. Let's try to work together to remedy this situation in the interest of all parties involved and make it easier for future podlings. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Guillame, I see eighty six (86) jar files in the non-source kit. Assuming that the project.properties file describes their origins, I see a number of them with non-AL licences (not necessarily an issue), and I don't see that attribution is given for *any* of them. Much less any notice concerning their IP and licensing terms. There is no NOTICE file. Some of these jars are apparently licensed under CPL or CDDL, which most definitely cannot be bundled without clear notice. - -1, at least until a proper and complete NOTICE file is included. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBREeJvZrNPMCpn3XdAQKf0gP/W/hO7xx9kit9bxjhlCHa4zqfegu2YUqr 1jEgUQ8VZSawiA8EuvY/AmyXPtP6ucamLDC4sDOXTALXTN3rp1XTuM88Pp6QiDgs I64w2mEkhD0Gl03uRVW+BPCvRAF7Xy8M/A8NotSIw3vGfOeGuWOMWA+757Its0E/ Pk2Bg+vj/to= =+Lpx -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
On 4/20/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -1 Bill Stoddard is correct in his understanding of http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases. The fact that other people have voted +1 without verifying that the release adheres to Incubator policy is a bit disturbing, but that's why we have multiple sets of eyes on these things. I really don't understand why it has been so hard for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix to follow Incubator policy, particularly after James acknowledged precisely what needs to be done, and said that the issues would be corrected for the next ActiveMQ candidate. FWIW now that the ActiveMQ build is fixed it should never again fail these incubator release requirements - though it did take quite a few attempts to get there. This is the first attempt at a milestone release of ServiceMix so its hardly surprising that one little thing was missed. Right now there's a disclaimer in the README and the maven POM and artifacts clearly use 'incubator-servicemix'. The missing piece (which is my bad, I should have fixed it when I fixed ActiveMQ) is that the maven project which creates the assembly does not include 'incubator-' in the filenames of the generated zips/tarballs - though its clearly visible in the directory name in which those tarballs are placed together with the maven POMs. FWIW I use maven for pretty much all projects I work on and use; so mentally when I see a maven build I read the project name from the groupID/artifactID of where the distro is in the maven repo - e.g. looking at the URL Guillaume posted I read 'incubator-servicemix' version '3.0-M1'. I suspect many other folks do the same - which could be why noone noticed the need for another explicit 'incubator-' in there for good measure. I've patched the build so this issue should be resolved now (it was servicemix-assembly/project.xml). Guillaume do you want to cut another build of 3.0-M1? Then AFAIK we should have the ServiceMix build process complying totally with the current incubator release guidelines. -- James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:59:30PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: -1 Bill Stoddard is correct in his understanding of http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases. The fact that other people have voted +1 without verifying that the release adheres to Incubator policy is a bit disturbing, but that's why we have multiple sets of eyes on these things. More than a bit, if you ask me. People even asking for a vote for a release without a NOTICE file is like, seriously messed up. What is going on around here lately? LSD, puzzled(tm) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
I am really confused by the reaction to this. I don't see any reason to be puzzled or upset. I don't want to make this a bigger issue than it is, but: 1. The project is incubating and this is the first time its done an Apache release. There are a lot of check boxes that need to be checked to make Apache happy. Overlooking a NOTICE file that almost no one looks at doesn't seem like that big of a jump to me. With an M1 release, I think everyone was a bit more worried whether the damn thing worked at all. As we move toward a .0 release things will certainly get more cleaned up. 2. Incubating release don't need to conform to Apache policy as far as I understand it. Only to whats outlined in the release section [1]. Thats why Roller can release with LGPL dependencies. So in this light, the NOTICE file shouldn't be a hold up, no? Only -incubator instead of -incubating can. And, at the risk of being hypocrytical here, can we keep commentary to a minimum? -1, +1, suggestions, and informing that requirements aren't met is great, but there doesn't seem to be a need to stir things up with how you feel a particular project is doing its job. Regards, - Dan 1. http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases Leo Simons wrote: On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:59:30PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: -1 Bill Stoddard is correct in his understanding of http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases. The fact that other people have voted +1 without verifying that the release adheres to Incubator policy is a bit disturbing, but that's why we have multiple sets of eyes on these things. More than a bit, if you ask me. People even asking for a vote for a release without a NOTICE file is like, seriously messed up. What is going on around here lately? LSD, puzzled(tm) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com http://netzooid.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
The incubation disclaimer is in the README.txt file at the root of the distributions. The incubator is prepended to the maven groupId which leads to a incubator-servicemix directory name where all attributes are available. This have already been the case for several incubating projects so I assumed it was the way to do with maven projects... Cheers, Guillaume Nodet Bill Stoddard wrote: Hi Guillaume, If my interpretation of the incubator release policy is correct, we need to place an 'incubating disclaimer' in the README.txt and name the distributed files incubating-servicemix-3.0-M1* http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases * the release archive MUST contain the word incubating in the filename; and * the release archive MUST contain an Incubation disclaimer (as described in the previous section), clearly visible in the main documentation or README file. A number of folks have already given this a +1 as is. We should either follow the release policy or amend it. IMHO, the requirement to place the word 'incubating' in the distributed file name is too onerous. Bill Guillaume Nodet wrote: The ServiceMix project voted on and has approved a proposal to release ServiceMix 3.0-M1. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy and we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to publish the distribution on the ServiceMix web site. The vote threads can be found here: http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE-Servicemix-3.0-M1-t1420042.html#a3827852 and the distributions: http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/incubator-servicemix-3.0-M1/incubator-servicemix/distributions/ Cheers, Guillaume Nodet - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve 3.0-M1 release of ServiceMix
+1 from me. -- dims On 4/18/06, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The ServiceMix project voted on and has approved a proposal to release ServiceMix 3.0-M1. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy and we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to publish the distribution on the ServiceMix web site. The vote threads can be found here: http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE-Servicemix-3.0-M1-t1420042.html#a3827852 and the distributions: http://people.apache.org/~gnodet/incubator-servicemix-3.0-M1/incubator-servicemix/distributions/ Cheers, Guillaume Nodet - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
