subject:"Re\: \[VOTE\] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1"

The current NOTICE file has exactly what you specify, plus a preamble
describing components and their licenses.  I will remove the preamble
- it was based on the Solr/Lucene NOTICE which I was told to use as an
example.

The LICENSE file, on the other hand, should currently have everything
that's in the NOTICE file in expanded form.  If you think I should
move the preamble to the LICENSE file as well, this would be the time
to indicate that.  Otherwise, the preamble will just be deleted.

Karl


On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:06 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:

 - I have made no changes to NOTICE and LICENSE, because the incubator
 and community advice seemed contradictory.  I would like a general
 sense of how many people feel that the current NOTICE and LICENSE
 files are unacceptable before I make changes.

 The NOTICE file is still incorrect and includes a lot of unnecessary
 stuff. Understanding how to do releases with the correct legal files
 is one of the important parts of incubation and as this is the first
 release for the poddling i think this needs to be sorted out.

 For the NOTICE file, start with the following text (between the ---'s):

 ---
 Apache ManifestCF
 Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation

 This product includes software developed by
 The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
 ---

 and then add _nothing_ unless you can find explicit policy documented
 somewhere in the ASF that says it is required. If someone wants to add
 something ask for the URL where the requirement is documented. The
 NOTICE file should only include required notices, the other text thats
 in the current NOTICE file could go in a README file, see
 http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

 For the LICENSE file, it should start with the AL as the current one
 does, and then include the text for all the other licenses used in the
 distribution. Those license that are currently in the NOTICE file
 should be moved to the LICENSE file and then you need to verify that
 all the 3rd party dependencies in the src and binary distributions are
 also in the LICENSE files of those distributions.

   ...ant

 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-08 Thread ant elder

That NOTICE file still contains additional text about Jetty and
HSQLDB, why is that needed? The Apache License section 4d describes
what must be included in the NOTICE and AIUI it says you only need to
include in your NOTICE the notices from Jetty and HSQLDB if you
distribute derivitave works of them. Thats not what you're doing you
are distributing copies of the them not Derivative Works so nothing is
needed in your NOTICE file.

   ...ant

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Rather than spin a whole new RC and upload it, which takes me two
 hours, I've attached the revised proposed NOTICE and LICENSE here, so
 people can comment directly.

 Karl

 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 The current NOTICE file has exactly what you specify, plus a preamble
 describing components and their licenses.  I will remove the preamble
 - it was based on the Solr/Lucene NOTICE which I was told to use as an
 example.

 The LICENSE file, on the other hand, should currently have everything
 that's in the NOTICE file in expanded form.  If you think I should
 move the preamble to the LICENSE file as well, this would be the time
 to indicate that.  Otherwise, the preamble will just be deleted.

 Karl


 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:06 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:

 - I have made no changes to NOTICE and LICENSE, because the incubator
 and community advice seemed contradictory.  I would like a general
 sense of how many people feel that the current NOTICE and LICENSE
 files are unacceptable before I make changes.

 The NOTICE file is still incorrect and includes a lot of unnecessary
 stuff. Understanding how to do releases with the correct legal files
 is one of the important parts of incubation and as this is the first
 release for the poddling i think this needs to be sorted out.

 For the NOTICE file, start with the following text (between the ---'s):

 ---
 Apache ManifestCF
 Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation

 This product includes software developed by
 The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
 ---

 and then add _nothing_ unless you can find explicit policy documented
 somewhere in the ASF that says it is required. If someone wants to add
 something ask for the URL where the requirement is documented. The
 NOTICE file should only include required notices, the other text thats
 in the current NOTICE file could go in a README file, see
 http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

 For the LICENSE file, it should start with the AL as the current one
 does, and then include the text for all the other licenses used in the
 distribution. Those license that are currently in the NOTICE file
 should be moved to the LICENSE file and then you need to verify that
 all the 3rd party dependencies in the src and binary distributions are
 also in the LICENSE files of those distributions.

   ...ant

 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

It is true that we've created no derivative Jetty or HSQLDB works. But
the Apache License 4(d) section does not explicitly mention Jetty and
HSQLDB as not requiring NOTICE text, and my understanding is that the
license terms for those components require the text I have included in
NOTICE.  I am checking with Solr/Lucene to find out why they concluded
they needed that text, but that may take a while.  They too are not
including this because they've created derivative works.  My guess is
that it has something to do with the following Apache policy:

# The remainder of the NOTICE file is to be used for required
third-party notices.
The NOTICE file may also include copyright notices moved from source
files submitted to the ASF.

Karl



On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 6:36 AM, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
 That NOTICE file still contains additional text about Jetty and
 HSQLDB, why is that needed? The Apache License section 4d describes
 what must be included in the NOTICE and AIUI it says you only need to
 include in your NOTICE the notices from Jetty and HSQLDB if you
 distribute derivitave works of them. Thats not what you're doing you
 are distributing copies of the them not Derivative Works so nothing is
 needed in your NOTICE file.

   ...ant

 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Rather than spin a whole new RC and upload it, which takes me two
 hours, I've attached the revised proposed NOTICE and LICENSE here, so
 people can comment directly.

 Karl

 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 The current NOTICE file has exactly what you specify, plus a preamble
 describing components and their licenses.  I will remove the preamble
 - it was based on the Solr/Lucene NOTICE which I was told to use as an
 example.

 The LICENSE file, on the other hand, should currently have everything
 that's in the NOTICE file in expanded form.  If you think I should
 move the preamble to the LICENSE file as well, this would be the time
 to indicate that.  Otherwise, the preamble will just be deleted.

 Karl


 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:06 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:

 - I have made no changes to NOTICE and LICENSE, because the incubator
 and community advice seemed contradictory.  I would like a general
 sense of how many people feel that the current NOTICE and LICENSE
 files are unacceptable before I make changes.

 The NOTICE file is still incorrect and includes a lot of unnecessary
 stuff. Understanding how to do releases with the correct legal files
 is one of the important parts of incubation and as this is the first
 release for the poddling i think this needs to be sorted out.

 For the NOTICE file, start with the following text (between the ---'s):

 ---
 Apache ManifestCF
 Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation

 This product includes software developed by
 The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
 ---

 and then add _nothing_ unless you can find explicit policy documented
 somewhere in the ASF that says it is required. If someone wants to add
 something ask for the URL where the requirement is documented. The
 NOTICE file should only include required notices, the other text thats
 in the current NOTICE file could go in a README file, see
 http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

 For the LICENSE file, it should start with the AL as the current one
 does, and then include the text for all the other licenses used in the
 distribution. Those license that are currently in the NOTICE file
 should be moved to the LICENSE file and then you need to verify that
 all the 3rd party dependencies in the src and binary distributions are
 also in the LICENSE files of those distributions.

   ...ant

 -
 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



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-08 Thread sebb

Note: the NOTICE year will need to be changed for the next release to 2010-2011.
For the current release I think it can remain as is - there don't seem
to have been any substantive changes made in 2011.

The leading blank lines need to be removed.

Otherwise, I concur with what Ant has mentioned elsethread.
The NOTICE file needs to be as short as possible; think of it as an About box.

Generally at most one or two lines are needed per product (as for ASF code)
So for any products that *require* a notice, the following should be enough:

===
This product contains MegaCorp FOO
Copyright (c) 1995-2000 by the MegaCorp Universal Corporation
===

The full details go in the LICENSE file.

On 8 January 2011 11:05, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Rather than spin a whole new RC and upload it, which takes me two
 hours, I've attached the revised proposed NOTICE and LICENSE here, so
 people can comment directly.

 Karl

 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 The current NOTICE file has exactly what you specify, plus a preamble
 describing components and their licenses.  I will remove the preamble
 - it was based on the Solr/Lucene NOTICE which I was told to use as an
 example.

 The LICENSE file, on the other hand, should currently have everything
 that's in the NOTICE file in expanded form.  If you think I should
 move the preamble to the LICENSE file as well, this would be the time
 to indicate that.  Otherwise, the preamble will just be deleted.

 Karl


 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:06 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:

 - I have made no changes to NOTICE and LICENSE, because the incubator
 and community advice seemed contradictory.  I would like a general
 sense of how many people feel that the current NOTICE and LICENSE
 files are unacceptable before I make changes.

 The NOTICE file is still incorrect and includes a lot of unnecessary
 stuff. Understanding how to do releases with the correct legal files
 is one of the important parts of incubation and as this is the first
 release for the poddling i think this needs to be sorted out.

 For the NOTICE file, start with the following text (between the ---'s):

 ---
 Apache ManifestCF
 Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation

 This product includes software developed by
 The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
 ---

 and then add _nothing_ unless you can find explicit policy documented
 somewhere in the ASF that says it is required. If someone wants to add
 something ask for the URL where the requirement is documented. The
 NOTICE file should only include required notices, the other text thats
 in the current NOTICE file could go in a README file, see
 http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

 For the LICENSE file, it should start with the AL as the current one
 does, and then include the text for all the other licenses used in the
 distribution. Those license that are currently in the NOTICE file
 should be moved to the LICENSE file and then you need to verify that
 all the 3rd party dependencies in the src and binary distributions are
 also in the LICENSE files of those distributions.

   ...ant

 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

I've made the 2011 change already.  But I'm having trouble reconciling
 your instructions with this part of the Apache license:


  (d) If the Work includes a NOTICE text file as part of its
  distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
  include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
  within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
  pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
  of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
  as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
  documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
  within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
  wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
  of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
  do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
  notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
  or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
  that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
  as modifying the License.


To the best of my knowledge, both remaining proposed NOTICE clauses
come from a NOTICE file or the equivalent in the source work.  The
meaning of Derivative Work is obviously what the question is - does
inclusion imply derivation?  Because, we are including it.

The short notices you are recommending I can certainly put back in,
but that goes directly against ant elder's request that they be
removed.  Indeed, it sounded to me like he thought there should be
nothing in NOTICE.txt other than the header.

Karl


On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:51 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Note: the NOTICE year will need to be changed for the next release to 
 2010-2011.
 For the current release I think it can remain as is - there don't seem
 to have been any substantive changes made in 2011.

 The leading blank lines need to be removed.

 Otherwise, I concur with what Ant has mentioned elsethread.
 The NOTICE file needs to be as short as possible; think of it as an About box.

 Generally at most one or two lines are needed per product (as for ASF code)
 So for any products that *require* a notice, the following should be enough:

 ===
 This product contains MegaCorp FOO
 Copyright (c) 1995-2000 by the MegaCorp Universal Corporation
 ===

 The full details go in the LICENSE file.

 On 8 January 2011 11:05, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Rather than spin a whole new RC and upload it, which takes me two
 hours, I've attached the revised proposed NOTICE and LICENSE here, so
 people can comment directly.

 Karl

 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 The current NOTICE file has exactly what you specify, plus a preamble
 describing components and their licenses.  I will remove the preamble
 - it was based on the Solr/Lucene NOTICE which I was told to use as an
 example.

 The LICENSE file, on the other hand, should currently have everything
 that's in the NOTICE file in expanded form.  If you think I should
 move the preamble to the LICENSE file as well, this would be the time
 to indicate that.  Otherwise, the preamble will just be deleted.

 Karl


 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:06 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:

 - I have made no changes to NOTICE and LICENSE, because the incubator
 and community advice seemed contradictory.  I would like a general
 sense of how many people feel that the current NOTICE and LICENSE
 files are unacceptable before I make changes.

 The NOTICE file is still incorrect and includes a lot of unnecessary
 stuff. Understanding how to do releases with the correct legal files
 is one of the important parts of incubation and as this is the first
 release for the poddling i think this needs to be sorted out.

 For the NOTICE file, start with the following text (between the ---'s):

 ---
 Apache ManifestCF
 Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation

 This product includes software developed by
 The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
 ---

 and then add _nothing_ unless you can find explicit policy documented
 somewhere in the ASF that says it is required. If someone wants to add
 something ask for the URL where the requirement is documented. The
 NOTICE file should only include required notices, the other text thats
 in the current NOTICE file could go in a README file, see
 http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

 For the LICENSE file, it should start with the AL as the current one
 does, and then include the text for all the other licenses used in the
 distribution. Those license that are currently in the NOTICE file
 should be moved to the LICENSE file and then you need to verify that
 all the 3rd party dependencies in the src

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

I've confirmed the following:

(1) The Jetty notice text I've included came from the source Jetty NOTICE file.
(2) The HSQLDB notice text I've included is NOT the same as the HSQLDB
license text, and very likely came from an HSQLDB NOTICE file also.

So, if I'm doing it wrong, at least I'm being consistent.  There is NO
license information in NOTICE.txt, as it stands now.

Karl

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 I've made the 2011 change already.  But I'm having trouble reconciling
  your instructions with this part of the Apache license:


      (d) If the Work includes a NOTICE text file as part of its
          distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
          include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
          within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
          pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
          of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
          as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
          documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
          within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
          wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
          of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
          do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
          notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
          or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
          that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
          as modifying the License.
 

 To the best of my knowledge, both remaining proposed NOTICE clauses
 come from a NOTICE file or the equivalent in the source work.  The
 meaning of Derivative Work is obviously what the question is - does
 inclusion imply derivation?  Because, we are including it.

 The short notices you are recommending I can certainly put back in,
 but that goes directly against ant elder's request that they be
 removed.  Indeed, it sounded to me like he thought there should be
 nothing in NOTICE.txt other than the header.

 Karl


 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:51 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Note: the NOTICE year will need to be changed for the next release to 
 2010-2011.
 For the current release I think it can remain as is - there don't seem
 to have been any substantive changes made in 2011.

 The leading blank lines need to be removed.

 Otherwise, I concur with what Ant has mentioned elsethread.
 The NOTICE file needs to be as short as possible; think of it as an About 
 box.

 Generally at most one or two lines are needed per product (as for ASF code)
 So for any products that *require* a notice, the following should be enough:

 ===
 This product contains MegaCorp FOO
 Copyright (c) 1995-2000 by the MegaCorp Universal Corporation
 ===

 The full details go in the LICENSE file.

 On 8 January 2011 11:05, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Rather than spin a whole new RC and upload it, which takes me two
 hours, I've attached the revised proposed NOTICE and LICENSE here, so
 people can comment directly.

 Karl

 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 The current NOTICE file has exactly what you specify, plus a preamble
 describing components and their licenses.  I will remove the preamble
 - it was based on the Solr/Lucene NOTICE which I was told to use as an
 example.

 The LICENSE file, on the other hand, should currently have everything
 that's in the NOTICE file in expanded form.  If you think I should
 move the preamble to the LICENSE file as well, this would be the time
 to indicate that.  Otherwise, the preamble will just be deleted.

 Karl


 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:06 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:

 - I have made no changes to NOTICE and LICENSE, because the incubator
 and community advice seemed contradictory.  I would like a general
 sense of how many people feel that the current NOTICE and LICENSE
 files are unacceptable before I make changes.

 The NOTICE file is still incorrect and includes a lot of unnecessary
 stuff. Understanding how to do releases with the correct legal files
 is one of the important parts of incubation and as this is the first
 release for the poddling i think this needs to be sorted out.

 For the NOTICE file, start with the following text (between the ---'s):

 ---
 Apache ManifestCF
 Copyright 2010 The Apache Software Foundation

 This product includes software developed by
 The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
 ---

 and then add _nothing_ unless you can find explicit policy documented
 somewhere in the ASF that says it is required. If someone wants to add
 something ask for the URL where the requirement is documented. The
 NOTICE file should only include

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-08 Thread Ralph Goers


On Jan 8, 2011, at 7:24 AM, Karl Wright wrote:

 I've made the 2011 change already.  But I'm having trouble reconciling
 your instructions with this part of the Apache license:
 
 
  (d) If the Work includes a NOTICE text file as part of its
  distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
  include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
  within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
  pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
  of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
  as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
  documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
  within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
  wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
  of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
  do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
  notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
  or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
  that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
  as modifying the License.
 
 
 To the best of my knowledge, both remaining proposed NOTICE clauses
 come from a NOTICE file or the equivalent in the source work.  The
 meaning of Derivative Work is obviously what the question is - does
 inclusion imply derivation?  Because, we are including it.

The confusion is understandable. The Free Software Foundation's definition of 
derivative work would probably apply to anything that is included to create the 
larger work. We aren't the Free Software Foundation. IAround here you will find 
the definition of derivative work to mean that you have taken the original work 
and made changes to it - regardless of any other code that might use the 
included work.  So if you are just including a jar and using the interfaces it 
exposes then yours is not a derivative work of the first.

At the beginning of the Apache License you will find the definition of 
derivative work 

Derivative Works shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that 
is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, 
annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an 
original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works 
shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by 
name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

Ok, so then it sounds like all of the current contents of NOTICE.txt
can technically be removed.  Where should these go?  LICENSE.txt?
README.txt?  The circular file?  I've received one recommendation for
each.

Karl

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:

 On Jan 8, 2011, at 7:24 AM, Karl Wright wrote:

 I've made the 2011 change already.  But I'm having trouble reconciling
 your instructions with this part of the Apache license:


      (d) If the Work includes a NOTICE text file as part of its
          distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
          include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
          within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
          pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
          of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
          as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
          documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
          within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
          wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
          of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
          do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
          notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
          or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
          that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
          as modifying the License.
 

 To the best of my knowledge, both remaining proposed NOTICE clauses
 come from a NOTICE file or the equivalent in the source work.  The
 meaning of Derivative Work is obviously what the question is - does
 inclusion imply derivation?  Because, we are including it.

 The confusion is understandable. The Free Software Foundation's definition of 
 derivative work would probably apply to anything that is included to create 
 the larger work. We aren't the Free Software Foundation. IAround here you 
 will find the definition of derivative work to mean that you have taken the 
 original work and made changes to it - regardless of any other code that 
 might use the included work.  So if you are just including a jar and using 
 the interfaces it exposes then yours is not a derivative work of the first.

 At the beginning of the Apache License you will find the definition of 
 derivative work

 Derivative Works shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, 
 that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial 
 revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a 
 whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, 
 Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or 
 merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative 
 Works thereof.




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-08 Thread Mattmann, Chris A (388J)

Hi Karl,

For consistency and for the purposes of VOTE'ing on the bits at your RC URL 
that will actually get copied to Apache's distribution servers, I'd like to see 
you create another RC directory. You don't have to respin the RC code, just 
copy the current contents into a new directory with a new RC rev # and include 
your three updated text files in it from here. I would also like to see a new 
[VOTE] thread, like this:

[VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1 RC #N

That way it's clear in mailing list threads how many +1s were attained, etc., 
without having to do a lot of detective work.

Thanks for working the process. Trust me: it gets easier :)

Once the above is done, I don't foresee any objections from me!

Cheers,
Chris

On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Karl Wright wrote:

 I've attached a new proposed version of README.txt, NOTICE.TXT, and
 LICENSE.txt.  Any further comments?
 
 Karl
 LICENSE.txtNOTICE.txtREADME.txt
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-08 Thread Mattmann, Chris A (388J)

One other note:

We probably should also see an SVN tag (or branch) URL in your release [VOTE] 
thread, so folks can also inspect the bits there. It's important to know what 
we're VOTE'ing on is consistent with what's in SVN.

Honestly, as much as it would suck to spend another 2 hours of time, I'm 
wondering if it's just best to create another tag or branch in SVN and re-spin 
the release for consistency. 

Cheers,
Chris

On Jan 8, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

 Hi Karl,
 
 For consistency and for the purposes of VOTE'ing on the bits at your RC URL 
 that will actually get copied to Apache's distribution servers, I'd like to 
 see you create another RC directory. You don't have to respin the RC code, 
 just copy the current contents into a new directory with a new RC rev # and 
 include your three updated text files in it from here. I would also like to 
 see a new [VOTE] thread, like this:
 
 [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1 RC #N
 
 That way it's clear in mailing list threads how many +1s were attained, etc., 
 without having to do a lot of detective work.
 
 Thanks for working the process. Trust me: it gets easier :)
 
 Once the above is done, I don't foresee any objections from me!
 
 Cheers,
 Chris
 
 On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
 
 I've attached a new proposed version of README.txt, NOTICE.TXT, and
 LICENSE.txt.  Any further comments?
 
 Karl
 LICENSE.txtNOTICE.txtREADME.txt
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 
 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
 ++
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 


++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

I need to respin anyway because the bits in the archives need to
change, and thus all the signatures.  The new bits also need to be
voted on by the community.  I was simply trying to short-circuit the
process for editorial convergence on these three files.

I will start a new vote thread for RC6 (which is the next RC) when:
(a) the upload is complete
(b) the ManifoldCF community has voted

The RC6 candidate currently has no known issues, provided my sense is
correct that the new LICENSE and NOTICE text are acceptable now.

Karl

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
 Hi Karl,

 For consistency and for the purposes of VOTE'ing on the bits at your RC URL 
 that will actually get copied to Apache's distribution servers, I'd like to 
 see you create another RC directory. You don't have to respin the RC code, 
 just copy the current contents into a new directory with a new RC rev # and 
 include your three updated text files in it from here. I would also like to 
 see a new [VOTE] thread, like this:

 [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1 RC #N

 That way it's clear in mailing list threads how many +1s were attained, etc., 
 without having to do a lot of detective work.

 Thanks for working the process. Trust me: it gets easier :)

 Once the above is done, I don't foresee any objections from me!

 Cheers,
 Chris

 On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Karl Wright wrote:

 I've attached a new proposed version of README.txt, NOTICE.TXT, and
 LICENSE.txt.  Any further comments?

 Karl
 LICENSE.txtNOTICE.txtREADME.txt
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
 ++


 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

I'd be happy to provide it.
Thanks,
Karl

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
 One other note:

 We probably should also see an SVN tag (or branch) URL in your release [VOTE] 
 thread, so folks can also inspect the bits there. It's important to know what 
 we're VOTE'ing on is consistent with what's in SVN.

 Honestly, as much as it would suck to spend another 2 hours of time, I'm 
 wondering if it's just best to create another tag or branch in SVN and 
 re-spin the release for consistency.

 Cheers,
 Chris

 On Jan 8, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

 Hi Karl,

 For consistency and for the purposes of VOTE'ing on the bits at your RC URL 
 that will actually get copied to Apache's distribution servers, I'd like to 
 see you create another RC directory. You don't have to respin the RC code, 
 just copy the current contents into a new directory with a new RC rev # and 
 include your three updated text files in it from here. I would also like to 
 see a new [VOTE] thread, like this:

 [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1 RC #N

 That way it's clear in mailing list threads how many +1s were attained, 
 etc., without having to do a lot of detective work.

 Thanks for working the process. Trust me: it gets easier :)

 Once the above is done, I don't foresee any objections from me!

 Cheers,
 Chris

 On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Karl Wright wrote:

 I've attached a new proposed version of README.txt, NOTICE.TXT, and
 LICENSE.txt.  Any further comments?

 Karl
 LICENSE.txtNOTICE.txtREADME.txt
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
 ++


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org



 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
 ++


 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-08 Thread Mattmann, Chris A (388J)

Thanks very much Karl. Great work!

Cheers,
Chris

On Jan 8, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Karl Wright wrote:

 I'd be happy to provide it.
 Thanks,
 Karl
 
 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
 One other note:
 
 We probably should also see an SVN tag (or branch) URL in your release 
 [VOTE] thread, so folks can also inspect the bits there. It's important to 
 know what we're VOTE'ing on is consistent with what's in SVN.
 
 Honestly, as much as it would suck to spend another 2 hours of time, I'm 
 wondering if it's just best to create another tag or branch in SVN and 
 re-spin the release for consistency.
 
 Cheers,
 Chris
 
 On Jan 8, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
 
 Hi Karl,
 
 For consistency and for the purposes of VOTE'ing on the bits at your RC URL 
 that will actually get copied to Apache's distribution servers, I'd like to 
 see you create another RC directory. You don't have to respin the RC code, 
 just copy the current contents into a new directory with a new RC rev # and 
 include your three updated text files in it from here. I would also like to 
 see a new [VOTE] thread, like this:
 
 [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1 RC #N
 
 That way it's clear in mailing list threads how many +1s were attained, 
 etc., without having to do a lot of detective work.
 
 Thanks for working the process. Trust me: it gets easier :)
 
 Once the above is done, I don't foresee any objections from me!
 
 Cheers,
 Chris
 
 On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
 
 I've attached a new proposed version of README.txt, NOTICE.TXT, and
 LICENSE.txt.  Any further comments?
 
 Karl
 LICENSE.txtNOTICE.txtREADME.txt
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 
 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
 ++
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 
 
 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
 ++
 
 
 -
 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
 


++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-08 Thread sebb

On 8 January 2011 16:40, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 I've attached a new proposed version of README.txt, NOTICE.TXT, and
 LICENSE.txt.  Any further comments?

As previously mentioned, all the files appear to have leading blank lines.
These should be removed.

The README file says:

Apache ManifoldCF is a multi-repository crawler framework, with
multiple connectors,
under incubation.

This is insufficient as an incubation disclaimer.
However I suggest the reference to incubation is removed, and a
separate DISCLAIMER file created.

See for example:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/empire-db/trunk/DISCLAIMER.txt

Also, I think the NOTICEs at the end ot the README belong in the LICENSE file.

==

As an entirely separate issue, the README says that the project has to
be built before use, and explains that one needs to download Java and
Ant.
If that is the case, why not include a download section in the build
file which fetches all the dependencies?

Or at least have an Ant target that copies the jar files to the
correct directories, and update the binary package to include a single
copy of each only.

 Karl


 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

(1) There already is a separate DISCLAIMER.txt.  I have attached it
for your consideration.
(2) As discussed earlier, the LICENSE file already contains sections
for HSQLDB and Jetty; the stuff added to the end of the README came
from NOTICE files in those projects, and is not license material.
(3) I don't know what download tool you have, but if you look in SVN
you will note that there are indeed no blank lines at the start of any
of the files.
(4) Making yet another ant target will make a very complex build twice
as complex.  I don't think that is wise at this point.

In short, I don't think there is any point in further changes.

Thanks,
Karl

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 8 January 2011 16:40, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 I've attached a new proposed version of README.txt, NOTICE.TXT, and
 LICENSE.txt.  Any further comments?

 As previously mentioned, all the files appear to have leading blank lines.
 These should be removed.

 The README file says:

 Apache ManifoldCF is a multi-repository crawler framework, with
 multiple connectors,
 under incubation.

 This is insufficient as an incubation disclaimer.
 However I suggest the reference to incubation is removed, and a
 separate DISCLAIMER file created.

 See for example:
 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/empire-db/trunk/DISCLAIMER.txt

 Also, I think the NOTICEs at the end ot the README belong in the LICENSE file.

 ==

 As an entirely separate issue, the README says that the project has to
 be built before use, and explains that one needs to download Java and
 Ant.
 If that is the case, why not include a download section in the build
 file which fetches all the dependencies?

 Or at least have an Ant target that copies the jar files to the
 correct directories, and update the binary package to include a single
 copy of each only.

 Karl


 -
 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


# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
# contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
# this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
# The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
# (the License); you may not use this file except in compliance with
# the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
#
# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
#
# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
# distributed under the License is distributed on an AS IS BASIS,
# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
# limitations under the License.

Apache ManifoldCF (formerly Apache Connectors Framework) is an effort undergoing
incubation at The Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Lucene PMC.
Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review 
indicates
that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have 
stabilized
in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation 
status is
not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it 
does
indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-08 Thread sebb

On 9 January 2011 02:33, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 (1) There already is a separate DISCLAIMER.txt.  I have attached it
 for your consideration.

OK.

 (2) As discussed earlier, the LICENSE file already contains sections
 for HSQLDB and Jetty; the stuff added to the end of the README came
 from NOTICE files in those projects, and is not license material.
 (3) I don't know what download tool you have, but if you look in SVN
 you will note that there are indeed no blank lines at the start of any
 of the files.

Sorry, I was looking at the attachments in GoogleMail.
Appears to be a bug in the View option, because they are OK when downloaded.

 (4) Making yet another ant target will make a very complex build twice
 as complex.  I don't think that is wise at this point.

I don't understand how one extra target can double the complexity.

 In short, I don't think there is any point in further changes.

I still think the binary archive is unnecessarily bloated, and will
cause wasted load and resources for mirrors and consumers.

 Thanks,
 Karl

 On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 8 January 2011 16:40, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 I've attached a new proposed version of README.txt, NOTICE.TXT, and
 LICENSE.txt.  Any further comments?

 As previously mentioned, all the files appear to have leading blank lines.
 These should be removed.

 The README file says:

 Apache ManifoldCF is a multi-repository crawler framework, with
 multiple connectors,
 under incubation.

 This is insufficient as an incubation disclaimer.
 However I suggest the reference to incubation is removed, and a
 separate DISCLAIMER file created.

 See for example:
 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/empire-db/trunk/DISCLAIMER.txt

 Also, I think the NOTICEs at the end ot the README belong in the LICENSE 
 file.

 ==

 As an entirely separate issue, the README says that the project has to
 be built before use, and explains that one needs to download Java and
 Ant.
 If that is the case, why not include a download section in the build
 file which fetches all the dependencies?

 Or at least have an Ant target that copies the jar files to the
 correct directories, and update the binary package to include a single
 copy of each only.

 Karl


 -
 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


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

The ManifoldCF documentation already requires Forrest 0.9-dev.  If
there was a downloadable binary version of 0.9-dev available, I'd be
willing to consider requiring the user to install it.  But that added
step is just too much, I think, to expect people to do as part of an
initial ManifoldCF setup.

Karl

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:22 PM, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:
 Karl Wright wrote:

 Very well; we will discontinue all binary distributions.

 One major problem will therefore be that we rely on Apache Forrest to
 build the documentation pages.  Forrest requires Java 1.5.  The
 availability of documentation in the release will therefore depend on
 the availability of Java 1.5 to the person building it.  Is this
 acceptable?

 It is a tiny isolated problem.

 There are two simple workarounds. People do not
 need to stick with Java 1.5

 http://forrest.apache.org/faq.html#oldjing

 -David

 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-07 Thread David Crossley

Karl Wright wrote:
 The ManifoldCF documentation already requires Forrest 0.9-dev.  If
 there was a downloadable binary version of 0.9-dev available, I'd be
 willing to consider requiring the user to install it.  But that added
 step is just too much, I think, to expect people to do as part of an
 initial ManifoldCF setup.

One consolation is that we do finally have a release of 0.9 planned.
http://s.apache.org/ln

-David

 David Crossley wrote:
  Karl Wright wrote:
 
  Very well; we will discontinue all binary distributions.
 
  One major problem will therefore be that we rely on Apache Forrest to
  build the documentation pages.  Forrest requires Java 1.5.  The
  availability of documentation in the release will therefore depend on
  the availability of Java 1.5 to the person building it.  Is this
  acceptable?
 
  It is a tiny isolated problem.
 
  There are two simple workarounds. People do not
  need to stick with Java 1.5
 
  http://forrest.apache.org/faq.html#oldjing
 
  -David

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-07 Thread Mark Struberg

btw, the release number should not be 0.1 but incubation-0.1 according to the 
Incubator rules.

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Fri, 1/7/11, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:

 From: David Crossley cross...@apache.org
 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 8:29 AM
 Karl Wright wrote:
  The ManifoldCF documentation already requires Forrest
 0.9-dev.  If
  there was a downloadable binary version of 0.9-dev
 available, I'd be
  willing to consider requiring the user to install
 it.  But that added
  step is just too much, I think, to expect people to do
 as part of an
  initial ManifoldCF setup.

 One consolation is that we do finally have a release of 0.9
 planned.
 http://s.apache.org/ln

 -David

  David Crossley wrote:
   Karl Wright wrote:

   Very well; we will discontinue all binary
 distributions.

   One major problem will therefore be that we
 rely on Apache Forrest to
   build the documentation pages.  Forrest
 requires Java 1.5.  The
   availability of documentation in the release
 will therefore depend on
   the availability of Java 1.5 to the person
 building it.  Is this
   acceptable?

   It is a tiny isolated problem.

   There are two simple workarounds. People do not
   need to stick with Java 1.5

   http://forrest.apache.org/faq.html#oldjing

   -David

 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

The release is numbered 0.1-incubator right now.  I could not find any
rule that said what the actual format of the release number should be.
 Can you point me to the document that describes this?

Thanks,
Karl

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
 btw, the release number should not be 0.1 but incubation-0.1 according to the 
 Incubator rules.

 LieGrue,
 strub

 --- On Fri, 1/7/11, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:

 From: David Crossley cross...@apache.org
 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 8:29 AM
 Karl Wright wrote:
  The ManifoldCF documentation already requires Forrest
 0.9-dev.  If
  there was a downloadable binary version of 0.9-dev
 available, I'd be
  willing to consider requiring the user to install
 it.  But that added
  step is just too much, I think, to expect people to do
 as part of an
  initial ManifoldCF setup.

 One consolation is that we do finally have a release of 0.9
 planned.
 http://s.apache.org/ln

 -David

  David Crossley wrote:
   Karl Wright wrote:
  
   Very well; we will discontinue all binary
 distributions.
  
   One major problem will therefore be that we
 rely on Apache Forrest to
   build the documentation pages.  Forrest
 requires Java 1.5.  The
   availability of documentation in the release
 will therefore depend on
   the availability of Java 1.5 to the person
 building it.  Is this
   acceptable?
  
   It is a tiny isolated problem.
  
   There are two simple workarounds. People do not
   need to stick with Java 1.5
  
   http://forrest.apache.org/faq.html#oldjing
  
   -David

 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-07 Thread Florent Guillaume

Actually 0.1-incubating or 0.1.0-incubating if I'm not mistaken.

Florent

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
 btw, the release number should not be 0.1 but incubation-0.1 according to the 
 Incubator rules.

 LieGrue,
 strub

 --- On Fri, 1/7/11, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:

 From: David Crossley cross...@apache.org
 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 8:29 AM
 Karl Wright wrote:
  The ManifoldCF documentation already requires Forrest
 0.9-dev.  If
  there was a downloadable binary version of 0.9-dev
 available, I'd be
  willing to consider requiring the user to install
 it.  But that added
  step is just too much, I think, to expect people to do
 as part of an
  initial ManifoldCF setup.

 One consolation is that we do finally have a release of 0.9
 planned.
 http://s.apache.org/ln

 -David

  David Crossley wrote:
   Karl Wright wrote:
  
   Very well; we will discontinue all binary
 distributions.
  
   One major problem will therefore be that we
 rely on Apache Forrest to
   build the documentation pages.  Forrest
 requires Java 1.5.  The
   availability of documentation in the release
 will therefore depend on
   the availability of Java 1.5 to the person
 building it.  Is this
   acceptable?
  
   It is a tiny isolated problem.
  
   There are two simple workarounds. People do not
   need to stick with Java 1.5
  
   http://forrest.apache.org/faq.html#oldjing
  
   -David

 -
 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





-- 
Florent Guillaume, Director of RD, Nuxeo
Open Source, Java EE based, Enterprise Content Management (ECM)
http://www.nuxeo.com   http://www.nuxeo.org   +33 1 40 33 79 87

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-07 Thread Florent Guillaume

http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming

Florent

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 The release is numbered 0.1-incubator right now.  I could not find any
 rule that said what the actual format of the release number should be.
  Can you point me to the document that describes this?

 Thanks,
 Karl

 On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
 btw, the release number should not be 0.1 but incubation-0.1 according to 
 the Incubator rules.

 LieGrue,
 strub

 --- On Fri, 1/7/11, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:

 From: David Crossley cross...@apache.org
 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 8:29 AM
 Karl Wright wrote:
  The ManifoldCF documentation already requires Forrest
 0.9-dev.  If
  there was a downloadable binary version of 0.9-dev
 available, I'd be
  willing to consider requiring the user to install
 it.  But that added
  step is just too much, I think, to expect people to do
 as part of an
  initial ManifoldCF setup.

 One consolation is that we do finally have a release of 0.9
 planned.
 http://s.apache.org/ln

 -David

  David Crossley wrote:
   Karl Wright wrote:
  
   Very well; we will discontinue all binary
 distributions.
  
   One major problem will therefore be that we
 rely on Apache Forrest to
   build the documentation pages.  Forrest
 requires Java 1.5.  The
   availability of documentation in the release
 will therefore depend on
   the availability of Java 1.5 to the person
 building it.  Is this
   acceptable?
  
   It is a tiny isolated problem.
  
   There are two simple workarounds. People do not
   need to stick with Java 1.5
  
   http://forrest.apache.org/faq.html#oldjing
  
   -David

 -
 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





-- 
Florent Guillaume, Director of RD, Nuxeo
Open Source, Java EE based, Enterprise Content Management (ECM)
http://www.nuxeo.com   http://www.nuxeo.org   +33 1 40 33 79 87

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

I have uploaded a new artifact now.

I could call this a release candidate except for the following:
- This artifact has not been voted on by the ManifoldCF community.  It
is probably necessary to revote since what is included in the package
has changed (e.g. no build artifacts except for docs).
- I have made no changes to NOTICE and LICENSE, because the incubator
and community advice seemed contradictory.  I would like a general
sense of how many people feel that the current NOTICE and LICENSE
files are unacceptable before I make changes.
- The two remaining RAT complaints, one of which comes from Forrest,
and one from Lucene, need resolution.  I posted about that earlier,
but I have received no advice.

I believe all other issues that have been raised have been addressed.
I would very much like it if the incubator would review the modified
artifact and see whether they agree.

Thanks,
Karl

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-07 Thread Mark Struberg

oki that's fine then. Only did read 0.1 and didn't get the suffix.

LieGrue,
stru

--- On Fri, 1/7/11, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:

 From: Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com
 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1
 To: general@incubator.apache.org
 Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 10:14 AM
 The release is numbered 0.1-incubator
 right now.  I could not find any
 rule that said what the actual format of the release number
 should be.
  Can you point me to the document that describes this?

 Thanks,
 Karl

 On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de
 wrote:
  btw, the release number should not be 0.1 but
 incubation-0.1 according to the Incubator rules.

  LieGrue,
  strub

  --- On Fri, 1/7/11, David Crossley cross...@apache.org
 wrote:

  From: David Crossley cross...@apache.org
  Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1
  To: general@incubator.apache.org
  Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 8:29 AM
  Karl Wright wrote:
   The ManifoldCF documentation already requires
 Forrest
  0.9-dev.  If
   there was a downloadable binary version of
 0.9-dev
  available, I'd be
   willing to consider requiring the user to
 install
  it.  But that added
   step is just too much, I think, to expect
 people to do
  as part of an
   initial ManifoldCF setup.

  One consolation is that we do finally have a
 release of 0.9
  planned.
  http://s.apache.org/ln

  -David

   David Crossley wrote:
Karl Wright wrote:

Very well; we will discontinue all
 binary
  distributions.

One major problem will therefore be
 that we
  rely on Apache Forrest to
build the documentation pages.
  Forrest
  requires Java 1.5.  The
availability of documentation in the
 release
  will therefore depend on
the availability of Java 1.5 to the
 person
  building it.  Is this
acceptable?

It is a tiny isolated problem.

There are two simple workarounds. People
 do not
need to stick with Java 1.5

http://forrest.apache.org/faq.html#oldjing

-David

 -
  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

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-07 Thread Mattmann, Chris A (388J)

Hi Karl,

Great job. +1 from me.

SIGS check out:

[chipotle:~/tmp/apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating] mattmann% gpg --verify 
apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating.tar.gz.asc
gpg: Signature made Fri Jan  7 02:44:17 2011 PST using RSA key ID 03824582
gpg: Good signature from Karl David Wright (CODE SIGNING KEY) 
kwri...@apache.org
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:  There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: E74B 06A0 454F 6E92 400A  3450 FD1F F09C 0382 4582
[chipotle:~/tmp/apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating] mattmann% gpg --verify 
apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating.zip.asc
gpg: Signature made Fri Jan  7 02:44:10 2011 PST using RSA key ID 03824582
gpg: Good signature from Karl David Wright (CODE SIGNING KEY) 
kwri...@apache.org
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:  There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: E74B 06A0 454F 6E92 400A  3450 FD1F F09C 0382 4582
[chipotle:~/tmp/apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating] mattmann% 


MD5s check out:

[chipotle:~/tmp/apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating] mattmann% cat *.md5
14F06B43AA87A615C7FD975452164664 *apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating.tar.gz 
F6D1D9AD7A5F7144B79C09B9E8A3BEE7 *apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating.zip 

[chipotle:~/tmp/apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating] mattmann% md5sum 
apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating.tar.gz apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating.zip
14f06b43aa87a615c7fd975452164664  apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating.tar.gz
f6d1d9ad7a5f7144b79c09b9e8a3bee7  apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubating.zip

Thanks for putting the KEYS file and CHANGES file with the RC.

Minor notes:

Rather than changing existing bits for the RC, why not just version them?

Instead of:

http://people.apache.org/~kwright/

You could do:

http://people.apache.org/~kwright/apache-manifold-cf-0.1-incubating/rcN/

So, for rc1, you'd have:

http://people.apache.org/~kwright/apache-manifold-cf-0.1-incubating/rc1/

BTW, it's fine to call this a release candidate. It's just not a release.

Again, great job!

Cheers,
Chris

On Jan 7, 2011, at 3:13 AM, Karl Wright wrote:

 I have uploaded a new artifact now.
 
 I could call this a release candidate except for the following:
 - This artifact has not been voted on by the ManifoldCF community.  It
 is probably necessary to revote since what is included in the package
 has changed (e.g. no build artifacts except for docs).
 - I have made no changes to NOTICE and LICENSE, because the incubator
 and community advice seemed contradictory.  I would like a general
 sense of how many people feel that the current NOTICE and LICENSE
 files are unacceptable before I make changes.
 - The two remaining RAT complaints, one of which comes from Forrest,
 and one from Lucene, need resolution.  I posted about that earlier,
 but I have received no advice.
 
 I believe all other issues that have been raised have been addressed.
 I would very much like it if the incubator would review the modified
 artifact and see whether they agree.
 
 Thanks,
 Karl
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 


++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

The community wanted to include both a source and a source+binary
distribution.  Accordingly, I spun up one of those, which is RC5.  The
RC4 candidate is still up there, so I guess you can vote on either
one.

Thanks!
Karl

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
 Hi Karl,

 Great job. +1 from me.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-07 Thread David Crossley

Karl Wright wrote:
The RAT report after these changes looks good except for two files,
which come from the skins in the site:

[rat:report] Unapproved licenses:
[rat:report]
[rat:report]
C:/wip/mcf-release/release-0.1-branch/site/src/documentation/skins/common/xslt/html/split.xsl
[rat:report]
C:/wip/mcf-release/release-0.1-branch/site/src/documentation/skins/lucene/note.txt
[rat:report]
[rat:report] ***

One of these looks like it comes from Forrest itself (the first), and
has this header:

!--
This stylesheet was taken from the XSLT FAQ http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl/

Comments and adaption to be used without normalize-space()
by forrest-...@xml.apache.org
--

No idea what to do about that one.

At Forrest we exclude it from our license header checking tools.

The other is merely a todo list in the Lucene skin, which I believe
could simply be removed.

Or just exclude it too from your RAT processing.

Thoughts?

I don't understand why ManifoldCF needs this special skin processing
that then needs to live in your svn.
At Forrest, we advise not to create their own skin unless absolutely
necessary. We prefer to address any needs in the default skin.

With a quick flick through the ManifoldCF site i do not see anything
that needs a special skin, just a couple of colour specifications.

Of course this would be better discussed at the Forrest mail lists.
At the dev@ list, seeing that you are using the development version.

However, i reckon that you should not hold up your release
because of this.

-David

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1


 I don't understand why ManifoldCF needs this special skin processing
 that then needs to live in your svn.
 At Forrest, we advise not to create their own skin unless absolutely
 necessary. We prefer to address any needs in the default skin.

 With a quick flick through the ManifoldCF site i do not see anything
 that needs a special skin, just a couple of colour specifications.

 Of course this would be better discussed at the Forrest mail lists.
 At the dev@ list, seeing that you are using the development version.

 However, i reckon that you should not hold up your release
 because of this.

 -David


Thanks for the advice.  The current Forrest skin was originally put
down by Grant so I will need to find out why he used it.  But it is
good to hear that these files can be excluded from the RAT report.

Karl

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

Hi Grant,

Is this a source or binary release? How are you guys making the release? Using 
Ant or Maven? 

Can you guys provide a KEYS and CHANGES.txt file as part of the release 
artifacts?

Cheers,
Chris

On Jan 6, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

 Hi,
 
 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.
 
 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/
 
 
 Thanks,
 Grant
 
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 


++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

Answering on Grant's behalf, the ManifoldCF artifact contains both
source and binary, and the KEYS and CHANGES.txt files are within the
artifact, as seems to be standard Apache practice.  You just need to
untar/unzip it.

Karl

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
 Hi Grant,

 Is this a source or binary release? How are you guys making the release? 
 Using Ant or Maven?

 Can you guys provide a KEYS and CHANGES.txt file as part of the release 
 artifacts?

 Cheers,
 Chris

 On Jan 6, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org



 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
 ++


 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

Hi Karl,

On Jan 6, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:

 Answering on Grant's behalf, the ManifoldCF artifact contains both
 source and binary, and the KEYS and CHANGES.txt files are within the
 artifact, as seems to be standard Apache practice.

Well I won't say it's standard Apache practice in my experience. I've made 
probably over a dozen releases in about 3+ different Apache projects so far 
(Nutch, Tika, SIS) and I've always put out a plain-text version of CHANGES.txt 
and KEYS alongside the release artifacts. The advantage of doing so is that I 
don't have to download a 140 MB file before I can check what changes are part 
of the release. 

Also one of the things that Clutch checks in the Incubator is that there is a 
KEYS file in the distribution area, separate of the release artifacts. So, I 
would say it should be there.

  You just need to
 untar/unzip it.

Thanks for the pointer. I'd like to see the source and binary tarballs 
separated. Strictly speaking, you really only need a source release, but it's 
up to you guys I think if you want to provide a binary one too. The advantage 
is that the source release is likely much smaller I'm guessing than the binary.

Cheers,
Chris


 
 
 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
 Hi Grant,
 
 Is this a source or binary release? How are you guys making the release? 
 Using Ant or Maven?
 
 Can you guys provide a KEYS and CHANGES.txt file as part of the release 
 artifacts?
 
 Cheers,
 Chris
 
 On Jan 6, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
 
 Hi,
 
 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.
 
 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/
 
 
 Thanks,
 Grant
 
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 
 
 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
 ++
 
 
 -
 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
 


++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

I am happy to provide clear-text versions of KEYS and CHANGES.txt if
that is what you require.  I've just never seen any other Apache
project that did that.

As for whether there should be separate source and binary
distributions, bear in mind that a binary-only distribution of
ManifoldCF makes little sense.  ManifoldCF is unusual in that it
distributes a number of connectors which require third-party libraries
in order to compile.  We do not distribute those libraries for
licensing reasons.  Conditional compilation is used to build those
connectors for which you supply the right bits.  The binary part thus
includes only the framework, and those connectors which depend only on
open-source code.  This is relatively limited but makes it faster and
easier for someone to start things up right out of the box.

So, effectively, you are asking us to not have a binary distribution
in order to save on space.  Is this a firm request, or is this just
unhappiness at the download time?  FWIW, I personally don't think such
a build will save a great deal tar/zip space, but I can certainly
check and get back to you.

Karl


On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
 Hi Karl,

 On Jan 6, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:

 Answering on Grant's behalf, the ManifoldCF artifact contains both
 source and binary, and the KEYS and CHANGES.txt files are within the
 artifact, as seems to be standard Apache practice.

 Well I won't say it's standard Apache practice in my experience. I've made 
 probably over a dozen releases in about 3+ different Apache projects so far 
 (Nutch, Tika, SIS) and I've always put out a plain-text version of 
 CHANGES.txt and KEYS alongside the release artifacts. The advantage of doing 
 so is that I don't have to download a 140 MB file before I can check what 
 changes are part of the release.

 Also one of the things that Clutch checks in the Incubator is that there is a 
 KEYS file in the distribution area, separate of the release artifacts. So, I 
 would say it should be there.

  You just need to
 untar/unzip it.

 Thanks for the pointer. I'd like to see the source and binary tarballs 
 separated. Strictly speaking, you really only need a source release, but it's 
 up to you guys I think if you want to provide a binary one too. The advantage 
 is that the source release is likely much smaller I'm guessing than the 
 binary.

 Cheers,
 Chris




 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
 Hi Grant,

 Is this a source or binary release? How are you guys making the release? 
 Using Ant or Maven?

 Can you guys provide a KEYS and CHANGES.txt file as part of the release 
 artifacts?

 Cheers,
 Chris

 On Jan 6, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org



 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
 ++


 -
 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



 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
 ++


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

The download size of sources alone is about 32M for each .zip/.tar.gz.

I can't upload CHANGES.txt or KEYS to people.apache.org right now
because of a firewall restriction, so I've attached the files for your
convenience.

Karl


On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 I am happy to provide clear-text versions of KEYS and CHANGES.txt if
 that is what you require.  I've just never seen any other Apache
 project that did that.

 As for whether there should be separate source and binary
 distributions, bear in mind that a binary-only distribution of
 ManifoldCF makes little sense.  ManifoldCF is unusual in that it
 distributes a number of connectors which require third-party libraries
 in order to compile.  We do not distribute those libraries for
 licensing reasons.  Conditional compilation is used to build those
 connectors for which you supply the right bits.  The binary part thus
 includes only the framework, and those connectors which depend only on
 open-source code.  This is relatively limited but makes it faster and
 easier for someone to start things up right out of the box.

 So, effectively, you are asking us to not have a binary distribution
 in order to save on space.  Is this a firm request, or is this just
 unhappiness at the download time?  FWIW, I personally don't think such
 a build will save a great deal tar/zip space, but I can certainly
 check and get back to you.

 Karl


 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
 Hi Karl,

 On Jan 6, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:

 Answering on Grant's behalf, the ManifoldCF artifact contains both
 source and binary, and the KEYS and CHANGES.txt files are within the
 artifact, as seems to be standard Apache practice.

 Well I won't say it's standard Apache practice in my experience. I've made 
 probably over a dozen releases in about 3+ different Apache projects so far 
 (Nutch, Tika, SIS) and I've always put out a plain-text version of 
 CHANGES.txt and KEYS alongside the release artifacts. The advantage of doing 
 so is that I don't have to download a 140 MB file before I can check what 
 changes are part of the release.

 Also one of the things that Clutch checks in the Incubator is that there is 
 a KEYS file in the distribution area, separate of the release artifacts. So, 
 I would say it should be there.

  You just need to
 untar/unzip it.

 Thanks for the pointer. I'd like to see the source and binary tarballs 
 separated. Strictly speaking, you really only need a source release, but 
 it's up to you guys I think if you want to provide a binary one too. The 
 advantage is that the source release is likely much smaller I'm guessing 
 than the binary.

 Cheers,
 Chris




 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
 Hi Grant,

 Is this a source or binary release? How are you guys making the release? 
 Using Ant or Maven?

 Can you guys provide a KEYS and CHANGES.txt file as part of the release 
 artifacts?

 Cheers,
 Chris

 On Jan 6, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org



 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
 ++


 -
 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



 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

On 6 January 2011 16:10, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 I am happy to provide clear-text versions of KEYS and CHANGES.txt if
 that is what you require.  I've just never seen any other Apache
 project that did that.

All Apache releases require pgp signatures, and the KEYS file must
contain the key necessary to validate the signature.

The KEYS file should be referenced from the download page, alongside
the sig and hash files.

For example:

http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi

The key should also be added to a pgp key server.

 As for whether there should be separate source and binary
 distributions, bear in mind that a binary-only distribution of
 ManifoldCF makes little sense.  ManifoldCF is unusual in that it
 distributes a number of connectors which require third-party libraries
 in order to compile.  We do not distribute those libraries for
 licensing reasons.  Conditional compilation is used to build those
 connectors for which you supply the right bits.  The binary part thus
 includes only the framework, and those connectors which depend only on
 open-source code.  This is relatively limited but makes it faster and
 easier for someone to start things up right out of the box.

 So, effectively, you are asking us to not have a binary distribution
 in order to save on space.  Is this a firm request, or is this just
 unhappiness at the download time?  FWIW, I personally don't think such
 a build will save a great deal tar/zip space, but I can certainly
 check and get back to you.

AIUI there must be a source distribution; the binary distribution is optional.

The consumer should not be forced to download the binary distribution
in order to get the source.

 Karl


 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
 Hi Karl,

 On Jan 6, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Karl Wright wrote:

 Answering on Grant's behalf, the ManifoldCF artifact contains both
 source and binary, and the KEYS and CHANGES.txt files are within the
 artifact, as seems to be standard Apache practice.

 Well I won't say it's standard Apache practice in my experience. I've made 
 probably over a dozen releases in about 3+ different Apache projects so far 
 (Nutch, Tika, SIS) and I've always put out a plain-text version of 
 CHANGES.txt and KEYS alongside the release artifacts. The advantage of doing 
 so is that I don't have to download a 140 MB file before I can check what 
 changes are part of the release.

 Also one of the things that Clutch checks in the Incubator is that there is 
 a KEYS file in the distribution area, separate of the release artifacts. So, 
 I would say it should be there.

  You just need to
 untar/unzip it.

 Thanks for the pointer. I'd like to see the source and binary tarballs 
 separated. Strictly speaking, you really only need a source release, but 
 it's up to you guys I think if you want to provide a binary one too. The 
 advantage is that the source release is likely much smaller I'm guessing 
 than the binary.

 Cheers,
 Chris




 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
 chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
 Hi Grant,

 Is this a source or binary release? How are you guys making the release? 
 Using Ant or Maven?

 Can you guys provide a KEYS and CHANGES.txt file as part of the release 
 artifacts?

 Cheers,
 Chris

 On Jan 6, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org



 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
 Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
 WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
 ++
 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
 ++


 -
 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



 ++
 Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
 Senior Computer Scientist
 NASA Jet Propulsion

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

 The key should also be added to a pgp key server.


The key has already been added to the MIT web of trust - I presume
that is what you meant?



 AIUI there must be a source distribution; the binary distribution is optional.

 The consumer should not be forced to download the binary distribution
 in order to get the source.


Very well; we will discontinue all binary distributions.

One major problem will therefore be that we rely on Apache Forrest to
build the documentation pages.  Forrest requires Java 1.5.  The
availability of documentation in the release will therefore depend on
the availability of Java 1.5 to the person building it.  Is this
acceptable?

Karl

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

On 6 January 2011 13:12, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/

The md5 hash file has an odd syntax, which makes it harder to use with
automated checking tools.

apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator.zip: A3 3E 0A 9F 58 94 DC 64  F7 B3 ED DB 63 2E
 CB EF

The standard format is

a33e0a9f5894dc64f7b3eddb632ecbef *apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator.zip

(upper case hex also valid)


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

On 6 January 2011 17:34, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 The key should also be added to a pgp key server.


 The key has already been added to the MIT web of trust - I presume
 that is what you meant?

Yes, I meant that the key should be retrievable from a pgp key server
- which it is (just checked).

[BTW, the web of trust is something different; neither key in the KEYS
file is part of any web of trust]



 AIUI there must be a source distribution; the binary distribution is 
 optional.

 The consumer should not be forced to download the binary distribution
 in order to get the source.


 Very well; we will discontinue all binary distributions.

That's not what I said.

You can have a binary distribution if you wish, but there must be a
source distribution.

 One major problem will therefore be that we rely on Apache Forrest to
 build the documentation pages.  Forrest requires Java 1.5.  The
 availability of documentation in the release will therefore depend on
 the availability of Java 1.5 to the person building it.  Is this
 acceptable?

 Karl

 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

On 6 January 2011 18:03, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 6 January 2011 13:12, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/

 The md5 hash file has an odd syntax, which makes it harder to use with
 automated checking tools.

 apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator.zip: A3 3E 0A 9F 58 94 DC 64  F7 B3 ED DB 63 
 2E
                                     CB EF

 The standard format is

 a33e0a9f5894dc64f7b3eddb632ecbef *apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator.zip

 (upper case hex also valid)


Also, the NOTICE and LICENSE files don't seem to be quite right.

The NOTICE file is for required notices only; so for example there is
no need to mention other ASF projects.

The LICENSE file references JUnit, which does not need to be
distributed, so is not needed in the LICENSE.


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

 Very well; we will discontinue all binary distributions.

 That's not what I said.

 You can have a binary distribution if you wish, but there must be a
 source distribution.


As I said before, it makes no sense to distribute ManifoldCF binaries
without complete sources.  So we could (I suppose) have a source
distribution AND a source+binary distribution.  But we could not
simply have a binary distribution and a source distribution.

Karl

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1


 Also, the NOTICE and LICENSE files don't seem to be quite right.

 The NOTICE file is for required notices only; so for example there is
 no need to mention other ASF projects.

 The LICENSE file references JUnit, which does not need to be
 distributed, so is not needed in the LICENSE.


These are based on what was done for Solr and Lucene.  Solr and Lucene
distribute JUnit, so that you may run the Solr and Lucene tests.
ManifoldCF does the same.

If you want us to remove JUnit from the distribution, then you cannot
test the connectors you build, which is definitely a problem.  I don't
think you'd really have a valid release if you did that.

Similarly, the Solr and Lucene NOTICE files include references to all
included Apache jars as well, and Grant was pretty insistent that I
include those.  I'm not sure why.

Karl

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1


 The md5 hash file has an odd syntax, which makes it harder to use with
 automated checking tools.

 apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator.zip: A3 3E 0A 9F 58 94 DC 64  F7 B3 ED DB 63 
 2E
                                     CB EF

 The standard format is

 a33e0a9f5894dc64f7b3eddb632ecbef *apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator.zip

 (upper case hex also valid)


The signature was generated with OpenPGP.  I must not be using the
right switches or something; I'll do some research and change my
script accordingly.

Karl

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

On 6 January 2011 18:23, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Very well; we will discontinue all binary distributions.

 That's not what I said.

 You can have a binary distribution if you wish, but there must be a
 source distribution.


 As I said before, it makes no sense to distribute ManifoldCF binaries
 without complete sources.  So we could (I suppose) have a source
 distribution AND a source+binary distribution.

That would be fine.

  But we could not simply have a binary distribution and a source distribution.

That would also work, but would require binary users to download both archives.

==

On a separate matter, I question whether the current packaging is optimal.
There appear to be 3 copies of every jar in the binary zip file - no
wonder the file is so large!

Also, many of the included jars are commonly used elsewhere, so the
consumer may well already have a copy.

Generally, the binary jar consists of the compiled source files only.

Some projects provide additional bundles which include all the
required dependencies; that might be the way to go here.

 Karl

 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

The whole question of ease-of-use is what drove this packaging
arrangement.  I was told it was unacceptable to not have a working
example out of the box that could be executed in a single line.  Build
and execution Instructions which involve obtaining a couple of dozen
jars from other places do not fulfill this criterion.

The three copies of the dependent jars occur because of the following:

- There is one copy of the jar that is used by the build
- There are two distinct execution environments, one single-process,
and one multi-process, that are built
- Each execution environment has its own subtree that it executes from

If the built environments are no longer distributed, then there will
be one copy of each dependent jar included.  I'm leaning towards just
having this minimum distribution since size is apparently a huge issue
here.  I still want to know if the source distribution should have the
forrest-built docs or not, though, or whether it should be up to the
user to build their own docs using Forrest themselves.  I would prefer
the former because Forrest is somewhat idiosyncratic, but you guys are
the bosses.

Karl

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 6 January 2011 18:23, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Very well; we will discontinue all binary distributions.

 That's not what I said.

 You can have a binary distribution if you wish, but there must be a
 source distribution.


 As I said before, it makes no sense to distribute ManifoldCF binaries
 without complete sources.  So we could (I suppose) have a source
 distribution AND a source+binary distribution.

 That would be fine.

  But we could not simply have a binary distribution and a source 
 distribution.

 That would also work, but would require binary users to download both 
 archives.

 ==

 On a separate matter, I question whether the current packaging is optimal.
 There appear to be 3 copies of every jar in the binary zip file - no
 wonder the file is so large!

 Also, many of the included jars are commonly used elsewhere, so the
 consumer may well already have a copy.

 Generally, the binary jar consists of the compiled source files only.

 Some projects provide additional bundles which include all the
 required dependencies; that might be the way to go here.

 Karl

 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

Hi Karl,

On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Karl Wright wrote:

 The whole question of ease-of-use is what drove this packaging
 arrangement.  I was told it was unacceptable to not have a working
 example out of the box that could be executed in a single line.  Build
 and execution Instructions which involve obtaining a couple of dozen
 jars from other places do not fulfill this criterion.

It's unacceptable to not release software according to Apache guidelines. 
There's some flexibility in those guidelines (whether to include a binary 
release or not, whether to include jar files in a distro or use Maven, etc.), 
and then there's not (must include a source release; must have a KEYS file; 
etc.etc.)

Including a working out of the box example might be something that ManifoldCF 
as a community deems absolutely required for a ManifoldCF release, but it's not 
absolutely required for an Apache release. Of course, not doing it has its own 
implications (users won't care about the software; will find it too difficult), 
but that's another subject.

 
 The three copies of the dependent jars occur because of the following:
 
 - There is one copy of the jar that is used by the build
 - There are two distinct execution environments, one single-process,
 and one multi-process, that are built
 - Each execution environment has its own subtree that it executes from

Are all of these Jars simply copies of an original Jar, or are they separately 
licensed?

 
 If the built environments are no longer distributed, then there will
 be one copy of each dependent jar included.  I'm leaning towards just
 having this minimum distribution since size is apparently a huge issue
 here.

It's a huge issue everywhere. Your release will be mirrored around the world 
using Apache's mirroring system. Beyond that it will be likely replicated N 
times at M companies who are using it. Size *is* a big issue, not just *here*.


  I still want to know if the source distribution should have the
 forrest-built docs or not, though, or whether it should be up to the
 user to build their own docs using Forrest themselves.  I would prefer
 the former because Forrest is somewhat idiosyncratic, but you guys are
 the bosses.

Eh, either way is fine with me, and I don't think anyone here should legislate 
on this. It should be a ManifoldCF community decision IMHO.

Cheers,
Chris


 
 Karl
 
 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 6 January 2011 18:23, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Very well; we will discontinue all binary distributions.
 
 That's not what I said.
 
 You can have a binary distribution if you wish, but there must be a
 source distribution.
 
 
 As I said before, it makes no sense to distribute ManifoldCF binaries
 without complete sources.  So we could (I suppose) have a source
 distribution AND a source+binary distribution.
 
 That would be fine.
 
  But we could not simply have a binary distribution and a source 
 distribution.
 
 That would also work, but would require binary users to download both 
 archives.
 
 ==
 
 On a separate matter, I question whether the current packaging is optimal.
 There appear to be 3 copies of every jar in the binary zip file - no
 wonder the file is so large!
 
 Also, many of the included jars are commonly used elsewhere, so the
 consumer may well already have a copy.
 
 Generally, the binary jar consists of the compiled source files only.
 
 Some projects provide additional bundles which include all the
 required dependencies; that might be the way to go here.
 
 Karl
 
 -
 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
 


++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

 It's unacceptable to not release software according to Apache guidelines. 
 There's some flexibility in those guidelines (whether to include a binary 
 release or not, whether to include jar files in a distro or use Maven, etc.), 
 and then there's not (must include a source release; must have a KEYS file; 
 etc.etc.)


I'm not arguing; I've accepted the conclusion that there will be no
binary distribution.


 The three copies of the dependent jars occur because of the following:

 - There is one copy of the jar that is used by the build
 - There are two distinct execution environments, one single-process,
 and one multi-process, that are built
 - Each execution environment has its own subtree that it executes from

 Are all of these Jars simply copies of an original Jar, or are they 
 separately licensed?


It's all the same license.  The dependent jars are copied into the
appropriate target locations by the build process.  So without the
build, you have one copy of each dependent jar.


 If the built environments are no longer distributed, then there will
 be one copy of each dependent jar included.  I'm leaning towards just
 having this minimum distribution since size is apparently a huge issue
 here.

 It's a huge issue everywhere. Your release will be mirrored around the world 
 using Apache's mirroring system. Beyond that it will be likely replicated N 
 times at M companies who are using it. Size *is* a big issue, not just *here*.

This was not obvious to me in the era of 1Tb disks costing $50.
Builds of this size have not been considered problematic in any place
I've worked for at least a decade.  But I will accept your
restrictions.


 Eh, either way is fine with me, and I don't think anyone here should 
 legislate on this. It should be a ManifoldCF community decision IMHO.


If you are flexible, I will recommend we include the built docs.  It
will increase the size of the distribution somewhat (from 32M to 45M
per tar.gz/zip), but it gives the user much more environmental
flexibility.

Karl

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-06 Thread ant elder

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant


I've reviewed this and think it mostly fine.

The NOTICE file does include some unnecessary things, i don't think
thats technically a blocking issue but as this is the first RC of the
first release it should probably be cleaned up and another RC done.
The NOTICE file should only include required notices that other text
if its really needed could go in a README file, see
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

I think this current source+binary distribution is fine. The rule is
that you can only release binary artifacts which also have the source
released, but there are no rules saying the source distribution must
not include any binary artifacts, so if this is what the project
thinks works best then its fine.

It is missing the Incubating disclaimer text which should be included
in the README or a DISCLAIMER file, see
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html#disclaimers

I tried building it with ant build and that failed, don't know if
that my environment or something else:
BUILD FAILED
C:\ASF\manifoldcf\apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator\build.xml:353: The
following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\ASF\manifoldcf\apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator\connectors\jdbc\build.xml:52:
C:\ASF\manifoldcf\apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator\co
nnectors\jdbc\jdbc-drivers does not exist.

Other than that it looks ok to me. Its big and inlcudes some duplicate
stuff but if thats what the project thinks is the best approach then
its fine, there are plenty of other big projects being distributed.

   ..ant

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

Hi Karl,

 
 It's all the same license.  The dependent jars are copied into the
 appropriate target locations by the build process.  So without the
 build, you have one copy of each dependent jar.

Cool, thanks.

 It's a huge issue everywhere. Your release will be mirrored around the world 
 using Apache's mirroring system. Beyond that it will be likely replicated N 
 times at M companies who are using it. Size *is* a big issue, not just 
 *here*.
 
 This was not obvious to me in the era of 1Tb disks costing $50.
 Builds of this size have not been considered problematic in any place
 I've worked for at least a decade.  But I will accept your
 restrictions.

Apache is a non-profit organization. Not saying they don't have the money to 
buy $50 disks as you say for mirroring, or that the companies that releases get 
mirrored to don't have it but if we can cut their expenses down that's always 
nice. Apache has over 80+ top level projects that are all making releases and 
so forth, and a ton of Incubator projects too, and a ton of Labs projects, so 
it's important to be good citizens.

I wouldn't say these are my restrictions either -- I've seen a number of 
other people over the years on these lists make the same comment, so I'm just 
passing it along.

 
 If you are flexible, I will recommend we include the built docs.  It
 will increase the size of the distribution somewhat (from 32M to 45M
 per tar.gz/zip), but it gives the user much more environmental
 flexibility.

Fine by me, but I can't speak for the others :)

Thanks for taking the time to address my comments/questions.

Cheers,
Chris

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

Where is the SVN tag for the release?

On 6 January 2011 13:12, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

Since this is a release candidate, and the release has not yet been
signed off, the tag has not yet been created.  There is, however, a
release branch, from which the release candidates get built.  When the
sign off occurs, the tag will be created from that branch.

Karl


On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:03 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Where is the SVN tag for the release?

 On 6 January 2011 13:12, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

On 6 January 2011 20:06, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Since this is a release candidate, and the release has not yet been
 signed off, the tag has not yet been created.  There is, however, a
 release branch, from which the release candidates get built.  When the
 sign off occurs, the tag will be created from that branch.

I see. I assume you are referring to:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lcf/branches/release-0.1-branch/

==

Another way to do this is to create a tag (with an RCn suffix) and
built the RC from that.

If the RC succeeds, rename the tag to remove the RCn suffix.

If the RC fails, fix the code, create RCn+1 and repeat.
The RCn tag can be deleted later when the release has been made or abandoned.

That way, there is a fixed tag that is used to create the RC which
reviewers can also use.

The RCn tags are also useful for reviewers to be able to quickly check
exactly what has changed between RCs.

 Karl


 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:03 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Where is the SVN tag for the release?

 On 6 January 2011 13:12, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 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



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

Yes, that is the correct branch.

If there is an official Apache tagging strategy, I'm fine with that.
Heretofore I've been using the MetaCarta release tagging strategy,
which was partly gated on a restriction in the MetaCarta svn setup
that prevented tags from being renamed or deleted.  Your proposal
sounds perfectly reasonable, though - I can begin to do it that way on
the next RC (which will actually be RC4).

Karl

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:25 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 6 January 2011 20:06, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Since this is a release candidate, and the release has not yet been
 signed off, the tag has not yet been created.  There is, however, a
 release branch, from which the release candidates get built.  When the
 sign off occurs, the tag will be created from that branch.

 I see. I assume you are referring to:

 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lcf/branches/release-0.1-branch/

 ==

 Another way to do this is to create a tag (with an RCn suffix) and
 built the RC from that.

 If the RC succeeds, rename the tag to remove the RCn suffix.

 If the RC fails, fix the code, create RCn+1 and repeat.
 The RCn tag can be deleted later when the release has been made or abandoned.

 That way, there is a fixed tag that is used to create the RC which
 reviewers can also use.

 The RCn tags are also useful for reviewers to be able to quickly check
 exactly what has changed between RCs.

 Karl


 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:03 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Where is the SVN tag for the release?

 On 6 January 2011 13:12, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 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



 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

The failure to build occurs because the directory it is complaining
about doesn't seem to exist after the zip is unpacked.  The directory
is empty at the time of the build.  It's not clear whether the problem
is the built zip itself or the way you are unpacking it.  I'll need to
look into this more tonight.

Karl


On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:26 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant


 I've reviewed this and think it mostly fine.

 The NOTICE file does include some unnecessary things, i don't think
 thats technically a blocking issue but as this is the first RC of the
 first release it should probably be cleaned up and another RC done.
 The NOTICE file should only include required notices that other text
 if its really needed could go in a README file, see
 http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

 I think this current source+binary distribution is fine. The rule is
 that you can only release binary artifacts which also have the source
 released, but there are no rules saying the source distribution must
 not include any binary artifacts, so if this is what the project
 thinks works best then its fine.

 It is missing the Incubating disclaimer text which should be included
 in the README or a DISCLAIMER file, see
 http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html#disclaimers

 I tried building it with ant build and that failed, don't know if
 that my environment or something else:
 BUILD FAILED
 C:\ASF\manifoldcf\apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator\build.xml:353: The
 following error occurred while executing this line:
 C:\ASF\manifoldcf\apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator\connectors\jdbc\build.xml:52:
 C:\ASF\manifoldcf\apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator\co
 nnectors\jdbc\jdbc-drivers does not exist.

 Other than that it looks ok to me. Its big and inlcudes some duplicate
 stuff but if thats what the project thinks is the best approach then
 its fine, there are plenty of other big projects being distributed.

   ..ant

 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

On 6 January 2011 20:41, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 The failure to build occurs because the directory it is complaining
 about doesn't seem to exist after the zip is unpacked.  The directory
 is empty at the time of the build.  It's not clear whether the problem
 is the built zip itself or the way you are unpacking it.  I'll need to
 look into this more tonight.

Not all archive types store empty directories.

Either have the build script create the directory or add a marker file
to the directory.

 Karl


 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:26 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant


 I've reviewed this and think it mostly fine.

 The NOTICE file does include some unnecessary things, i don't think
 thats technically a blocking issue but as this is the first RC of the
 first release it should probably be cleaned up and another RC done.
 The NOTICE file should only include required notices that other text
 if its really needed could go in a README file, see
 http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice

 I think this current source+binary distribution is fine. The rule is
 that you can only release binary artifacts which also have the source
 released, but there are no rules saying the source distribution must
 not include any binary artifacts, so if this is what the project
 thinks works best then its fine.

 It is missing the Incubating disclaimer text which should be included
 in the README or a DISCLAIMER file, see
 http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html#disclaimers

 I tried building it with ant build and that failed, don't know if
 that my environment or something else:
 BUILD FAILED
 C:\ASF\manifoldcf\apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator\build.xml:353: The
 following error occurred while executing this line:
 C:\ASF\manifoldcf\apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator\connectors\jdbc\build.xml:52:
 C:\ASF\manifoldcf\apache-manifoldcf-0.1-incubator\co
 nnectors\jdbc\jdbc-drivers does not exist.

 Other than that it looks ok to me. Its big and inlcudes some duplicate
 stuff but if thats what the project thinks is the best approach then
 its fine, there are plenty of other big projects being distributed.

   ..ant

 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

Just noticed that there are a lot of source files without AL headers.
The RAT tool can detect these for you.

Also, there should normally be a DISCLAIMER file at the top-level of
archives and SVN trees.

It's simpler to have this in a separate file, which can then just be
deleted upon graduation.

On 6 January 2011 13:12, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

2011-01-06 Thread David Crossley

Karl Wright wrote:
 
 Very well; we will discontinue all binary distributions.
 
 One major problem will therefore be that we rely on Apache Forrest to
 build the documentation pages.  Forrest requires Java 1.5.  The
 availability of documentation in the release will therefore depend on
 the availability of Java 1.5 to the person building it.  Is this
 acceptable?

It is a tiny isolated problem.

There are two simple workarounds. People do not
need to stick with Java 1.5

http://forrest.apache.org/faq.html#oldjing

-David

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

We've been using the RAT tool.  The files without headers are in part
Microsoft project files, which cannot have headers added without
breaking them.  Also, we build JSON sources, which are licensed with
an accepted JSON license that RAT does not recognize.

I've captured a lot of these exceptions in the ant target rat-sources.

Karl

If you have specific concerns, let's discuss them.

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Just noticed that there are a lot of source files without AL headers.
 The RAT tool can detect these for you.

 Also, there should normally be a DISCLAIMER file at the top-level of
 archives and SVN trees.

 It's simpler to have this in a separate file, which can then just be
 deleted upon graduation.

 On 6 January 2011 13:12, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

On 6 January 2011 22:38, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 We've been using the RAT tool.

In which case it would be helpful to provide the RAT report(s).

 The files without headers are in part
 Microsoft project files, which cannot have headers added without
 breaking them.  Also, we build JSON sources, which are licensed with
 an accepted JSON license that RAT does not recognize.

 I've captured a lot of these exceptions in the ant target rat-sources.

 Karl

 If you have specific concerns, let's discuss them.

The following sources don't appear to be JSON files, yet they don't
have AL headers:

framework/crawler-ui/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/jsp/x.tld
framework/crawler-ui/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/jsp/sql.tld
framework/crawler-ui/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/jsp/fmt.tld
framework/crawler-ui/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/jsp/c.tld
connectors/sharepoint/webservice/Web
References/SPPermissionsService/Reference.map
connectors/sharepoint/webservice/Properties/Settings.settings
connectors/sharepoint/webservice/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs
connectors/meridio/webservice/Test Harness/source code/TestHarness.cs

AFAICT these are not excluded by the Ant target.

BTW some of the .cs files appear to have BOM markers - not sure
whether that is intentional.

 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Just noticed that there are a lot of source files without AL headers.
 The RAT tool can detect these for you.

 Also, there should normally be a DISCLAIMER file at the top-level of
 archives and SVN trees.

 It's simpler to have this in a separate file, which can then just be
 deleted upon graduation.

 On 6 January 2011 13:12, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 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



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

The .cs files are maintained by Visual Studio and you cannot change
the format if you want them to keep working.  Same with the .map file.
 I will add them to exclusions for the rat target

The .tld's were taken from Apache Tomcat, but did not include Apache
headers.  I am not sure what I should do with those, which is why I
left them as is.  What is your recommendation?

Karl



On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:26 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 6 January 2011 22:38, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 We've been using the RAT tool.

 In which case it would be helpful to provide the RAT report(s).

 The files without headers are in part
 Microsoft project files, which cannot have headers added without
 breaking them.  Also, we build JSON sources, which are licensed with
 an accepted JSON license that RAT does not recognize.

 I've captured a lot of these exceptions in the ant target rat-sources.

 Karl

 If you have specific concerns, let's discuss them.

 The following sources don't appear to be JSON files, yet they don't
 have AL headers:

 framework/crawler-ui/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/jsp/x.tld
 framework/crawler-ui/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/jsp/sql.tld
 framework/crawler-ui/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/jsp/fmt.tld
 framework/crawler-ui/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/jsp/c.tld
 connectors/sharepoint/webservice/Web
 References/SPPermissionsService/Reference.map
 connectors/sharepoint/webservice/Properties/Settings.settings
 connectors/sharepoint/webservice/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs
 connectors/meridio/webservice/Test Harness/source code/TestHarness.cs

 AFAICT these are not excluded by the Ant target.

 BTW some of the .cs files appear to have BOM markers - not sure
 whether that is intentional.

 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Just noticed that there are a lot of source files without AL headers.
 The RAT tool can detect these for you.

 Also, there should normally be a DISCLAIMER file at the top-level of
 archives and SVN trees.

 It's simpler to have this in a separate file, which can then just be
 deleted upon graduation.

 On 6 January 2011 13:12, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 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



 -
 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] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1

They were downloaded from the jakarta standard taglibs 1.1.2, from this URL:

http://jakarta.apache.org/site/downloads/downloads_taglibs-standard.cgi

The project was folded into tomcat, but I simply used the tag
libraries from the separately-bundled artifact.  It turns out that the
Apache headers were not on it, however, although it seems very clear
that these *should* have apache headers on them.

I'm happy to just go ahead and do that, unless you think it would be a mistake.

Karl

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:13 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 6 January 2011 23:53, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 The .cs files are maintained by Visual Studio and you cannot change
 the format if you want them to keep working.  Same with the .map file.
  I will add them to exclusions for the rat target

 The .tld's were taken from Apache Tomcat, but did not include Apache
 headers.  I am not sure what I should do with those, which is why I
 left them as is.  What is your recommendation?

 Depends on the source. If they are ASF files then they should have ASF
 headers in Tomcat and here.
 If not, then they may require entries in NOTICE or LICENSE.
 Probably best to re-check the Tomcat sources, and if there is no
 header, ask why on the Tomcat list.

 Karl



 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:26 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 6 January 2011 22:38, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
 We've been using the RAT tool.

 In which case it would be helpful to provide the RAT report(s).

 The files without headers are in part
 Microsoft project files, which cannot have headers added without
 breaking them.  Also, we build JSON sources, which are licensed with
 an accepted JSON license that RAT does not recognize.

 I've captured a lot of these exceptions in the ant target rat-sources.

 Karl

 If you have specific concerns, let's discuss them.

 The following sources don't appear to be JSON files, yet they don't
 have AL headers:

 framework/crawler-ui/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/jsp/x.tld
 framework/crawler-ui/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/jsp/sql.tld
 framework/crawler-ui/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/jsp/fmt.tld
 framework/crawler-ui/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/jsp/c.tld
 connectors/sharepoint/webservice/Web
 References/SPPermissionsService/Reference.map
 connectors/sharepoint/webservice/Properties/Settings.settings
 connectors/sharepoint/webservice/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs
 connectors/meridio/webservice/Test Harness/source code/TestHarness.cs

 AFAICT these are not excluded by the Ant target.

 BTW some of the .cs files appear to have BOM markers - not sure
 whether that is intentional.

 On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Just noticed that there are a lot of source files without AL headers.
 The RAT tool can detect these for you.

 Also, there should normally be a DISCLAIMER file at the top-level of
 archives and SVN trees.

 It's simpler to have this in a separate file, which can then just be
 deleted upon graduation.

 On 6 January 2011 13:12, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi,

 The Apache ManifoldCF community has voted to release our first set of 
 artifacts and now would like an Incubator vote.  Since this is our first 
 release, extra attention to detail is appreciated.

 You can find the artifacts at http://people.apache.org/~kwright/


 Thanks,
 Grant



 -
 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



 -
 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



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1