Re: [VOTE] Approve the M1 release of Apache Stonehenge (Second try)
On 23/05/2009, Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar uthaiyashan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Sebb, the source archive does not have the documentation source files. The generated site files are included instead. [The binary archive correctly contains the generate site files.] I fixed it and uploaded to http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/take4/ (Only modification is in the src packs, including documentation source files and removing generated site files). Is it ok, or do we have to go for a re-vote? The source archive does not seem to contain the .css files - how do these end up in the generated site? We don't have any custom css yet. css files are generated by mvn site command and site documents are using them. OK, I see. It looks like the xdocs/resources directory is missing from SVN and the source archive. Do we need this, if we are using generated css files? No. The build file for the .NET code assumes that the code is being built from SVN, and tries to update the current directory. This is not appropriate for a source code archive, Current build file will check for svn working copy and if it is not an svn working copy, it will omit it and continue to build. So, it will work in the source release as well. But, you are correct, we have to remove it. Do we have to remove it for this release or can we do it for next release (since it works)? which should be self-contained (apart from any 3rd party dependencies, which should be documented.). The build file should check that any required environment variables are set up and exit with an error if not. Also any required settings should be documented somewhere, preferably in the script as well as in the top-level README or BUILDING file. Installation guide WIKI shows all the dependencies and the settings needed. As mentioned above, this information needs to be included in the source archive. I am bit unclear here. We are including this information in the source archive as the pdf documents (generated from wiki). Do we need to extract the dependencies and put it in BUILDING file? How does one build the binary archive from the source archive? And what dependencies need to be available? This needs to be documented in the source archive in the README or a BUILDING file. If the process is already described fully elsewhere within the source archive, then the README can point to that documentation, e.g. To build the binary archive, see section 10.3 in the file xyz.pdf. But if the instructions are simple and short, it might be helpful to extract them to a BUILDING file. That should probably mention where to find the installation instructions. Regards, Shankar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Approve the M1 release of Apache Stonehenge (Second try)
Hi Sebb, Thank you very much for the clarifications. Regards, Shankar On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:28 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 23/05/2009, Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar uthaiyashan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Sebb, the source archive does not have the documentation source files. The generated site files are included instead. [The binary archive correctly contains the generate site files.] I fixed it and uploaded to http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/take4/ (Only modification is in the src packs, including documentation source files and removing generated site files). Is it ok, or do we have to go for a re-vote? The source archive does not seem to contain the .css files - how do these end up in the generated site? We don't have any custom css yet. css files are generated by mvn site command and site documents are using them. OK, I see. It looks like the xdocs/resources directory is missing from SVN and the source archive. Do we need this, if we are using generated css files? No. The build file for the .NET code assumes that the code is being built from SVN, and tries to update the current directory. This is not appropriate for a source code archive, Current build file will check for svn working copy and if it is not an svn working copy, it will omit it and continue to build. So, it will work in the source release as well. But, you are correct, we have to remove it. Do we have to remove it for this release or can we do it for next release (since it works)? which should be self-contained (apart from any 3rd party dependencies, which should be documented.). The build file should check that any required environment variables are set up and exit with an error if not. Also any required settings should be documented somewhere, preferably in the script as well as in the top-level README or BUILDING file. Installation guide WIKI shows all the dependencies and the settings needed. As mentioned above, this information needs to be included in the source archive. I am bit unclear here. We are including this information in the source archive as the pdf documents (generated from wiki). Do we need to extract the dependencies and put it in BUILDING file? How does one build the binary archive from the source archive? And what dependencies need to be available? This needs to be documented in the source archive in the README or a BUILDING file. If the process is already described fully elsewhere within the source archive, then the README can point to that documentation, e.g. To build the binary archive, see section 10.3 in the file xyz.pdf. But if the instructions are simple and short, it might be helpful to extract them to a BUILDING file. That should probably mention where to find the installation instructions. Regards, Shankar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Approve the M1 release of Apache Stonehenge (Second try)
On 22/05/2009, Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar uthaiyashan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Sebb, I have uploaded the Apache Stonehenge M1 release artifacts here: http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/take3/ Sigs and hashes OK. Binary tgz and zip archives agree with each other. Source tgz and zip archives agree with each other. NL files appear to be in place. However, the source archives don't agree with SVN. Apart from the missing Ruby files (I think this is because they are not ready for release?), Yes, you are correct. the source archive does not have the documentation source files. The generated site files are included instead. [The binary archive correctly contains the generate site files.] I fixed it and uploaded to http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/take4/ (Only modification is in the src packs, including documentation source files and removing generated site files). Is it ok, or do we have to go for a re-vote? The source archive does not seem to contain the .css files - how do these end up in the generated site? It looks like the xdocs/resources directory is missing from SVN and the source archive. Also, how are the source and binary archives built? There are normally build scripts (Ant or Maven) in SVN for this, and these need to go into the source archives. It must be possible to build the binary archive from the source archive + any 3rd party dependencies. There does not appear to be any documentation on how to build the binary release from the source. This information is given in the installation instructions on the Wiki. Where? There are instructions as to how to build the individual components, but how does one create stonehenge-stocktrader-m1-incubating.zip from stonehenge-stocktrader-m1-incubating-src.zip - for example? Besides, I think the instructions need to be in the source archive - or at least it needs to point to the exact web-page that has the instructions. The README refers to installation instructions on the Wiki, which is fine. However it should mention that the archives contain PDFs of the Wiki pages. README file mentions Copy of above wiki pages are included in docs/. I overlooked that. Might be better to start by saying that the documents are included, and then mention that the uptodate versions are on the web. The build file for the .NET code assumes that the code is being built from SVN, and tries to update the current directory. This is not appropriate for a source code archive, Current build file will check for svn working copy and if it is not an svn working copy, it will omit it and continue to build. So, it will work in the source release as well. But, you are correct, we have to remove it. Do we have to remove it for this release or can we do it for next release (since it works)? which should be self-contained (apart from any 3rd party dependencies, which should be documented.). The build file should check that any required environment variables are set up and exit with an error if not. Also any required settings should be documented somewhere, preferably in the script as well as in the top-level README or BUILDING file. Installation guide WIKI shows all the dependencies and the settings needed. As mentioned above, this information needs to be included in the source archive. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Approve the M1 release of Apache Stonehenge (Second try)
Hi Sebb, the source archive does not have the documentation source files. The generated site files are included instead. [The binary archive correctly contains the generate site files.] I fixed it and uploaded to http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/take4/ (Only modification is in the src packs, including documentation source files and removing generated site files). Is it ok, or do we have to go for a re-vote? The source archive does not seem to contain the .css files - how do these end up in the generated site? We don't have any custom css yet. css files are generated by mvn site command and site documents are using them. It looks like the xdocs/resources directory is missing from SVN and the source archive. Do we need this, if we are using generated css files? The build file for the .NET code assumes that the code is being built from SVN, and tries to update the current directory. This is not appropriate for a source code archive, Current build file will check for svn working copy and if it is not an svn working copy, it will omit it and continue to build. So, it will work in the source release as well. But, you are correct, we have to remove it. Do we have to remove it for this release or can we do it for next release (since it works)? which should be self-contained (apart from any 3rd party dependencies, which should be documented.). The build file should check that any required environment variables are set up and exit with an error if not. Also any required settings should be documented somewhere, preferably in the script as well as in the top-level README or BUILDING file. Installation guide WIKI shows all the dependencies and the settings needed. As mentioned above, this information needs to be included in the source archive. I am bit unclear here. We are including this information in the source archive as the pdf documents (generated from wiki). Do we need to extract the dependencies and put it in BUILDING file? Regards, Shankar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Approve the M1 release of Apache Stonehenge (Second try)
+1 - Deepal On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar uthaiyashan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, The Apache Stonehenge community has voted for the M1 release of Apache Stonehenge. We are now asking the approval from the Incubator PMC to publish the release. Stonehenge is a set of example applications for Service Oriented Architecture that spans languages and platforms and demonstrates best practise and interoperability. I have uploaded the Apache Stonehenge M1 release artifacts here: http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/take3/ The key is here: http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/take3/KEYS RAT reports are here: http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/rat_report/take3/ This release is tagged at: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stonehenge/tags/stonehenge_m1_incubator_take3/ The release vote on the stonehenge-dev mailing list resulted in *eight* +1 votes and no 0 or -1 votes. +1 votes are from *Kent Brown *Ben Dewey *Kamaljit Bath *Nandana Mihindukulasooriya *Abu Obeida Bakhach *Chintana Wilamuna *Paul Fremantle *Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar This includes one IPMC vote from: *Paul Fremantle Vote Mail Thread is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/stonehenge-...@incubator.apache.org/msg00945.html Previous attempt on gene...@incubator list is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg21414.html More information about the project can be found here: [Incubation Status Page] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/stonehenge.html [Project Page] http://incubator.apache.org/stonehenge/ Please vote to approve this release. [] +1 Publish [] +0 [] -0 [] -1 Don't publish Regards, Shankar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Approve the M1 release of Apache Stonehenge (Second try)
On 21/05/2009, Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar uthaiyashan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, The Apache Stonehenge community has voted for the M1 release of Apache Stonehenge. We are now asking the approval from the Incubator PMC to publish the release. Stonehenge is a set of example applications for Service Oriented Architecture that spans languages and platforms and demonstrates best practise and interoperability. I have uploaded the Apache Stonehenge M1 release artifacts here: http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/take3/ Sigs and hashes OK. Binary tgz and zip archives agree with each other. Source tgz and zip archives agree with each other. NL files appear to be in place. However, the source archives don't agree with SVN. Apart from the missing Ruby files (I think this is because they are not ready for release?), the source archive does not have the documentation source files. The generated site files are included instead. [The binary archive correctly contains the generate site files.] There does not appear to be any documentation on how to build the binary release from the source. The README refers to installation instructions on the Wiki, which is fine. However it should mention that the archives contain PDFs of the Wiki pages. The build file for the .NET code assumes that the code is being built from SVN, and tries to update the current directory. This is not appropriate for a source code archive, which should be self-contained (apart from any 3rd party dependencies, which should be documented.). The build file should check that any required environment variables are set up and exit with an error if not. Also any required settings should be documented somewhere, preferably in the script as well as in the top-level README or BUILDING file. The key is here: http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/take3/KEYS RAT reports are here: http://people.apache.org/~shankar/stonehenge/m1/rat_report/take3/ This release is tagged at: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stonehenge/tags/stonehenge_m1_incubator_take3/ The release vote on the stonehenge-dev mailing list resulted in *eight* +1 votes and no 0 or -1 votes. +1 votes are from *Kent Brown *Ben Dewey *Kamaljit Bath *Nandana Mihindukulasooriya *Abu Obeida Bakhach *Chintana Wilamuna *Paul Fremantle *Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar This includes one IPMC vote from: *Paul Fremantle Vote Mail Thread is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/stonehenge-...@incubator.apache.org/msg00945.html Previous attempt on gene...@incubator list is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg21414.html More information about the project can be found here: [Incubation Status Page] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/stonehenge.html [Project Page] http://incubator.apache.org/stonehenge/ Please vote to approve this release. [] +1 Publish [] +0 [] -0 [] -1 Don't publish Regards, Shankar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
