Staging Apache Rat 0.9
Unless anyone jumps in sometime soon with an issue with the latest[1] snapshot[2], following the guidelines[3] I hope to cut a 0.9 and upload it to the staging repository. Once this is done I'll ask the community to review the release and vote. Everyone is encouraged to vote. Before the uploaded artefact can be blessed as a official Apache Software Foundation (ASF) release, at least three binding +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes are needed (see [4] and [5] for more information). Votes from PMCers are bind the ASF. (PMCers often add 'binding' to help tally the vote. Sometimes people add 'non-binding'. Both are optional :-) For more information on the way Apache project conduct themselves, browse [6] Robert [1] 0.9-20130323.083323 [2] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/apache/rat/ [3] http://www.apache.org/dev/publishing-maven-artifacts.html#staging-maven [4] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval [5] www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distribute-raw-artifact [6] http://community.apache.org/committers/index.html
Re: Staging Apache Rat 0.9
On 03/23/13 11:39, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: Unless anyone jumps in sometime soon with an issue with the latest[1] snapshot[2], following the guidelines[3] I hope to cut a 0.9 and upload it to the staging repository. Hopefully we have lazy consensus on this. I hope to cut this later today. Robert
Re: Staging Apache Rat 0.9
On 03/24/13 09:26, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On 03/23/13 11:39, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: Unless anyone jumps in sometime soon with an issue with the latest[1] snapshot[2], following the guidelines[3] I hope to cut a 0.9 and upload it to the staging repository. Hopefully we have lazy consensus on this. I hope to cut this later today. After a little bit of a battle, I've pushed to staging[1]. Before I move on to a VOTE, I hope to take a look using tentacles Robert [1] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecreadur-019/
Issue with orgapachecreadur-019 [WAS Re: Staging Apache Rat 0.9]
On 03/24/13 18:21, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On 03/24/13 09:26, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On 03/23/13 11:39, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: Unless anyone jumps in sometime soon with an issue with the latest[1] snapshot[2], following the guidelines[3] I hope to cut a 0.9 and upload it to the staging repository. Hopefully we have lazy consensus on this. I hope to cut this later today. After a little bit of a battle, I've pushed to staging[1]. Before I move on to a VOTE, I hope to take a look using tentacles Unfortunately, I didn't check that the build for the apache-rat runnable uber-jar uses the maven-shade plugin :-( This means that the jar is missing NOTICE files for the Apache Licensed dependencies included within the jar. Apologies. All the dependences involved are Apache Software Foundation releases. Unless anyone spots something, I can't see this mistake posing a legal risk to downstream users. So, unless anyone jumps in, I'll just go ahead to fix the issue in trunk, delete the staging repository and then think about cut another candidate. I'm less sure about the best approach to numbering this new candidate. (In the past, I've cut release candidates first. Even with a staging repository this would have been sensible.) I lean towards 0.9.1, eliminating any risk that two signed 0.9 could escape into the wild. Opinions? Objections? Suggestions? Robert
Re: Issue with orgapachecreadur-019 [WAS Re: Staging Apache Rat 0.9]
On 03/26/13 12:18, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: Unfortunately, I didn't check that the build for the apache-rat runnable uber-jar uses the maven-shade plugin :-( This means that the jar is missing NOTICE files for the Apache Licensed dependencies included within the jar. Apologies. The reason why we don't use the shade plugin is that it requires Maven 3. I'll try a less elegant work around... Robert
Re: Issue with orgapachecreadur-019 [WAS Re: Staging Apache Rat 0.9]
On 26 March 2013 12:18, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On 03/24/13 18:21, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >> >> On 03/24/13 09:26, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >>> >>> On 03/23/13 11:39, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: Unless anyone jumps in sometime soon with an issue with the latest[1] snapshot[2], following the guidelines[3] I hope to cut a 0.9 and upload it to the staging repository. >>> >>> >>> Hopefully we have lazy consensus on this. I hope to cut this later today. >> >> >> After a little bit of a battle, I've pushed to staging[1]. Before I move >> on to a VOTE, I hope to take a look using tentacles > > > Unfortunately, I didn't check that the build for the apache-rat runnable > uber-jar uses the maven-shade plugin :-( This means that the jar is missing > NOTICE files for the Apache Licensed dependencies included within the jar. > Apologies. > > All the dependences involved are Apache Software Foundation releases. Unless > anyone spots something, I can't see this mistake posing a legal risk to > downstream users. > > So, unless anyone jumps in, I'll just go ahead to fix the issue in trunk, > delete the staging repository and then think about cut another candidate. > > I'm less sure about the best approach to numbering this new candidate. (In > the past, I've cut release candidates first. Even with a staging repository > this would have been sensible.) I lean towards 0.9.1, eliminating any risk > that two signed 0.9 could escape into the wild. > > Opinions? Objections? Suggestions? Not sure you need to worry about the files escaping from the staging repo - that's part of the point, they are not yet published files. So long as you delete the repo they won't be published. > Robert
Re: Issue with orgapachecreadur-019 [WAS Re: Staging Apache Rat 0.9]
On 03/26/13 20:37, sebb wrote: On 26 March 2013 12:18, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: I'm less sure about the best approach to numbering this new candidate. (In the past, I've cut release candidates first. Even with a staging repository this would have been sensible.) I lean towards 0.9.1, eliminating any risk that two signed 0.9 could escape into the wild. Opinions? Objections? Suggestions? Not sure you need to worry about the files escaping from the staging repo - that's part of the point, they are not yet published files. So long as you delete the repo they won't be published. Yes, now that the repo has been dropped, escape is unlikely I'm comfortable with either trying a 0.9 again or cutting a 0.9.1 Is there consensus that trying again to cut a 0.9 release would be the best approach? Robert
Re: Issue with orgapachecreadur-019 [WAS Re: Staging Apache Rat 0.9]
On 03/28/13 10:17, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On 03/26/13 20:37, sebb wrote: On 26 March 2013 12:18, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: I'm less sure about the best approach to numbering this new candidate. (In the past, I've cut release candidates first. Even with a staging repository this would have been sensible.) I lean towards 0.9.1, eliminating any risk that two signed 0.9 could escape into the wild. Opinions? Objections? Suggestions? Not sure you need to worry about the files escaping from the staging repo - that's part of the point, they are not yet published files. So long as you delete the repo they won't be published. Yes, now that the repo has been dropped, escape is unlikely I'm comfortable with either trying a 0.9 again or cutting a 0.9.1 Is there consensus that trying again to cut a 0.9 release would be the best approach? A good fix turned out to be fiddle, so I committed a workaround[1] for the issue. I'm ready to try staging another candidate. Robert [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1462047
