Re: How strict should podling release reviews be?
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 12:26, Kevan Miller wrote: IIUC, the external dependencies of an incubating project need not strictly conform to Apache policy. For instance, a project may enter incubation with dependencies on artifacts that have an excluded license (http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html#category-x). It's my understanding that incubator releases could be created with these dependencies. However, the project would be expected to be working to remove these dependencies (certainly would be expected to be removed prior to graduation). Is my understanding correct? This relaxation of Apache policy towards external dependency policy does not translate to a relaxation of licensing requirements. Any Apache release must observe and follow the license requirements of the artifacts that it contains (no matter what category the license falls under). Failure to adhere to the license requirements of these dependencies are non-negotiable. Once identified, they must be addressed prior to release. Somewhat correct, BUT the consequence of of adhere to the license requirements of these dependencies would mean that for most of the excluded licenses, we can NOT release under Apache License, which is not a leniency tolerated. So, the correct understanding would instead to be; 1. The podling is released under Apache License. 2. We fulfill all licensing requirements of dependencies. 3. No redistribution of sources other than category A licensed code. 4. Binary dependencies only on category A and category B licensed code. I would personally also like to add; 5. Any code imported under a non-compatible (i.e. not Category A) license has been removed from the codebase. Probably other things as well. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How strict should podling release reviews be?
On 10/2/07, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/2/07, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm thinking more of a benevolent educator than traffic warden style reviewer role. When it comes to legal issues related to a release, the warden role is the more appropriate. It benefits neither the project nor the ASF if we are lax in that regard. Some of the things that they need to do are identified by RAT, and would be non-issues if they would correct their build process to do them automatically, e.g., inserting the license and disclaimer files where they are supposed to go. i do believe that there's a definite problem here. there's too much energy wasted by everyone. the IPMC cannot actively oversee the code bases without automation. so, the only real oversight happens at release time. this is bad for everyone. really, we need to automatically scan and analyse the incubator codebases. i hope that http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RatProposal may help That RAT proposal looks really good, its just what we need. I can't promise to contribute much code but i'd definitely hang around and help test it on things. Until that gets implemented (or maybe as part of its design?) could there be a wiki page documenting each rule RAT would check? That way we could have a complete list of each specific requirement in one place to make it easier for both podlings and reviewers to check manually till RAT is done. If we had such a list then it could be only the things documented there are release blockers, or at least if a release is blocked the reason should get added to the list so we eventually have a fairly compressive list of the rules so everyone knows what to expect. I'd have a go at creating such wiki page with the rules I know about if people think its useful but i expect others would need to help out if its going to get very comprehensive :) ...ant
[RESULT][VOTE] Approve the release of Tuscany Java DAS beta2 (1.0-incubating-beta2)
Vote to approve the release of Tuscany Java DAS beta2 (1.0-incubating-beta2) has passed with 3 binding +1 and no -1s. Matthieu Riou Ant Elder Paul Fremantle On 10/2/07, Paul Fremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 from me Paul On 9/28/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 from me. I can't see any issues that haven't already been mentioned here or over on tuscany-dev. ...ant On 9/27/07, Luciano Resende [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Apache Tuscany project request IPMC permission to release the Java DAS beta2 (1.0-incubating-beta2). The vote thread is here ... http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev%40ws.apache.org/msg24045.html The artifacts, including the binary and source distributions, the RAT reports, and the Maven staging repository, are available for review at : http://people.apache.org/~lresende/tuscany/das-beta2-rc1/ The SVN tag for the release is: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/das/1.0-incubating-beta2-rc1/ Thanks in advance -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Paul Fremantle Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2 OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oxygenating the Web Service Platform, www.wso2.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RAT^H^H^H Proposal
i'm preparing http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RatProposal but i thought i'd get the most controvercial and difficult aspect out of the way: the name. i quite like the name RAT since it's a play on words a Release Audit Tool which rats on releases. (i was also born in the year of the rat.) so, i expect people to find a thousand good reasons why it shouldn't be used. to get you all started, here are some links: http://www.cv.tu-berlin.de/rat/license.php http://www.blackrat.biz/ http://www.frtr.gov/decisionsupport/DST_Tools/RAT.htm http://epa.instepsoftware.com/rat/ http://wiki.wwiionline.com/index.php/Cornered_Rat_Software http://neonrat.com/ yes, lots of people use rat in relation to software since RAT is so widely used, the name of the google project is arat. i'm not sure why but the project is #3 at google and #2 at yahoo. so aRAT is more plausable. there seems to be a place called arat in the US and it seems to be a sur- and first-name. these probably weight against this option. opinions? - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAT^H^H^H Proposal
On 10/3/07, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm preparing http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RatProposal but i thought i'd get the most controvercial and difficult aspect out of the way: the name. i quite like the name RAT since it's a play on words a Release Audit Tool which rats on releases. (i was also born in the year of the rat.) so, i expect people to find a thousand good reasons why it shouldn't be used. Au contraire. I like RAT. I read it as short for ratification. And we are having a software zoo here already anyway. Bernd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAT^H^H^H Proposal
Nothing wrong with a Rat as an apache project. Craig On Oct 3, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: i'm preparing http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RatProposal but i thought i'd get the most controvercial and difficult aspect out of the way: the name. i quite like the name RAT since it's a play on words a Release Audit Tool which rats on releases. (i was also born in the year of the rat.) so, i expect people to find a thousand good reasons why it shouldn't be used. to get you all started, here are some links: http://www.cv.tu-berlin.de/rat/license.php http://www.blackrat.biz/ http://www.frtr.gov/decisionsupport/DST_Tools/RAT.htm http://epa.instepsoftware.com/rat/ http://wiki.wwiionline.com/index.php/Cornered_Rat_Software http://neonrat.com/ yes, lots of people use rat in relation to software since RAT is so widely used, the name of the google project is arat. i'm not sure why but the project is #3 at google and #2 at yahoo. so aRAT is more plausable. there seems to be a place called arat in the US and it seems to be a sur- and first-name. these probably weight against this option. opinions? - robert - 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: RAT^H^H^H Proposal
On 10/3/07, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm preparing http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RatProposal but i thought i'd get the most controvercial and difficult aspect out of the way: the name. I think RAT's a great name, keep it. Yoav - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How strict should podling release reviews be?
On 10/3/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/2/07, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/2/07, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm thinking more of a benevolent educator than traffic warden style reviewer role. When it comes to legal issues related to a release, the warden role is the more appropriate. It benefits neither the project nor the ASF if we are lax in that regard. Some of the things that they need to do are identified by RAT, and would be non-issues if they would correct their build process to do them automatically, e.g., inserting the license and disclaimer files where they are supposed to go. i do believe that there's a definite problem here. there's too much energy wasted by everyone. the IPMC cannot actively oversee the code bases without automation. so, the only real oversight happens at release time. this is bad for everyone. really, we need to automatically scan and analyse the incubator codebases. i hope that http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RatProposal may help That RAT proposal looks really good, its just what we need. I can't promise to contribute much code but i'd definitely hang around and help test it on things. Until that gets implemented (or maybe as part of its design?) could there be Its not starting from scratch - theres already been a few releases - currently living at google code: http://code.google.com/p/arat/ Niall a wiki page documenting each rule RAT would check? That way we could have a complete list of each specific requirement in one place to make it easier for both podlings and reviewers to check manually till RAT is done. If we had such a list then it could be only the things documented there are release blockers, or at least if a release is blocked the reason should get added to the list so we eventually have a fairly compressive list of the rules so everyone knows what to expect. I'd have a go at creating such wiki page with the rules I know about if people think its useful but i expect others would need to help out if its going to get very comprehensive :) ...ant - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAT^H^H^H Proposal
Yoav Shapira wrote: On 10/3/07, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm preparing http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RatProposal but i thought i'd get the most controvercial and difficult aspect out of the way: the name. I think RAT's a great name, keep it. And you are all set when O'Reilly publishes your book! Yes - keep it :) Bill - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAT^H^H^H Proposal
On 10/3/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yoav Shapira wrote: On 10/3/07, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm preparing http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RatProposal but i thought i'd get the most controvercial and difficult aspect out of the way: the name. I think RAT's a great name, keep it. +1 to keep the RAT name. and Thanks for making such a helpful tool. -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How strict should podling release reviews be?
On 10/3/07, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/2/07, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/2/07, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i'm thinking more of a benevolent educator than traffic warden style reviewer role. When it comes to legal issues related to a release, the warden role is the more appropriate. It benefits neither the project nor the ASF if we are lax in that regard. Some of the things that they need to do are identified by RAT, and would be non-issues if they would correct their build process to do them automatically, e.g., inserting the license and disclaimer files where they are supposed to go. i do believe that there's a definite problem here. there's too much energy wasted by everyone. the IPMC cannot actively oversee the code bases without automation. so, the only real oversight happens at release time. this is bad for everyone. really, we need to automatically scan and analyse the incubator codebases. i hope that http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RatProposal may help That RAT proposal looks really good, its just what we need. I can't promise to contribute much code but i'd definitely hang around and help test it on things. hopefully it will be easy to contribute in small ways without too much effort. this is particularly important since a lot of meta-data needs to be collected. this probably isn't feasible without active help from contributors. for example, a good guessing algorithm for generated files needs good meta-data about the ways common programs mark files as generated. so release managers can contribute by submitting new patterns whenever RAT doesn't correctly recognize a generated file. another example, discordia aims to collect meta-data allowing artifacts to be matched to license meta-data. when release managers encounter a jar (or other binary artifact unknown to discordia) they can submit meta-data. Until that gets implemented (or maybe as part of its design?) could there be a wiki page documenting each rule RAT would check? RAT just automates tedious checks that reviewers carry out by hand. again, this is going to require collection of meta-data analysis rules for automation. That way we could have a complete list of each specific requirement in one place to make it easier for both podlings and reviewers to check manually till RAT is done. If we had such a list then it could be only the things documented there are release blockers, or at least if a release is blocked the reason should get added to the list so we eventually have a fairly compressive list of the rules so everyone knows what to expect. different people have different ideas about what are blockers and IMHO this is good i've seen very few -1's, what's much more common is for people with criticisms to post them and not offer a vote i would expect a -1 only if the apache policies were broken I'd have a go at creating such wiki page with the rules I know about if people think its useful but i expect others would need to help out if its going to get very comprehensive :) IMHO the wiki is just a distraction: the real problem is that the release management page is very unfinished. if there are people with time then improving would be great. volunteers? - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Effects on corporate backing withdrawals [was: Incubator Proposal: Pig]
On 9/25/07, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: One of the purpose of the incubator is to ensure that there is a sustainable developer community, so I don't see failure of incubating projects as a real problem. +1. If we knew for sure that a project would be able to attract a community, we would have much less need for incubation. +1 - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Effects on corporate backing withdrawals [was: Incubator Proposal: Pig]
On 9/26/07, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/25/07, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the purpose of the incubator is to ensure that there is a sustainable developer community, so I don't see failure of incubating projects as a real problem. +1 Theres more of an issue IMO with projects that don't come thru the incubator, since they don't have to meet the Incubator's stringent graduation requirement. As an example - Tapestry was pushed out to a TLP from Jakarta, but the following blog from a Tapestry committer doesn't make good reading from a community PoV: http://agileskills2.org/blog/2007/09/my_thoughts_on_the_differences.html i have the impression that howard is one of those people who dominates by his charisma and energy rather than any abuse of the process - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RAT^H^H^H Proposal
On 10/3/07, Robert Burrell Donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...i quite like the name RAT... +1, RAT rocks! -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
