Re: [VOTE] SDO Java Release M3

[ant elder]

I've a had a look and have some comments and questions.

- The samples distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE files

- The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they are
there in sdo-api directory)

- The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and include a
non-ASF copyright - has this been discussed before, can we do this?

- There are no SDO artifact jars to review, are the SDO jars going to be
installed to the Apache maven repository?

- LICENSE files refer to 2.2.1 releases of the EMF components not 2.2.2release.

- Is there a reason the bin distro unzips to
tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3whereas all the other distro's
(impl/samples/src) unzip to
tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/sdo?

- I find all the distro's and contents a bit confusing - javadoc is included
in the bin, src and samples distros, samples are included in the samples,
src, and impl distro, what is the impl distro?

- I wasn't sure what to do with all the sdo-api src included at
http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/M3/RC2/api/tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/
?

  ...ant

On 4/11/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Please vote to release the M3 distribution of Tuscany SDO for Java

The release candidate RC2 for Tuscany Java SDO is posted here 
http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/M3/RC2/
The release
audit tool (rat) files and associated exceptions are attached to the jira
under which the release work was done, here 
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1171<
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1171>
The tag for the source code is here .

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sdo/1.0-incubator-M3/
<
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sdo/1.0-incubator-M3/
>
Changes in this release are shown here .

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sdo/1.0-incubator-M3/sdo/distribution/RELEASE_NOTES.txt
<
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sdo/1.0-incubator-M3/sdo/distribution/RELEASE_NOTES.txt
>

Thanks in advance,
Kelvin.

Re: [VOTE] SDO Java Release M3

[ant elder]

More comments inline...

On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



- The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they are

there in sdo-api directory)

this is the anomaly that I pointed  out in the last release cycle in
response to the requirement that each of the archives unpacks into a single
root folder -- any commonly named files required to be in the root folder
would overwrite one another,  hence their appearance in the next level
down.  We can not satisfy both requirements!  Hence for each archive I was
considering / to be the "root" folder



Must all the archives unpack into a single root folder?


- The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and include a

non-ASF copyright - has this been discussed before, can we do this?
This was as it was in M2 and M1.  I followed the established pattern.  I
beleive this to be correct.



That we got away with it in M1 and M2 may have just been an oversight which
is why I asked if  there had been any discussion about it. I don't remember
any discussion. This doesn't seem correct to me, the sca-api files have the
ASF header and not any OSOA copyright, why are the sdo-api's different?
Didn't we develop all this code in Tuscany? The LICENSE in the sdo-api jar
says its under ASL. I think these need to be fixed or at least a clear
explanation found why its ok like this.


- There are no SDO artifact jars to review, are the SDO jars going to be

installed to the Apache maven repository?
The jars are in the binary distribution in the lib folder



I think they need to be separate so we can review the exact artifacts that
will be deployed to the maven repository including all the pom and
maven-metadata xml files along with the associated checksums and signatures.



- Is there a reason the bin distro unzips to
tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3whereas all the other distro's
(impl/samples/src) unzip to

tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/sdo?
the binary archive is the result of maven's default "best practice",  the
other archives are so in order to meet the above referenced requirement to
unpack in to a common root directory.  I guess I could add a bin directory
to the binary distribution,  but I think for the most part people will be
downloading either the binary distro (perhaps with the samples) or the
source distros.  It would be odd to bury the binary distro deeper I think,
but your suggestions are very welcome.



As above, must all the archives unpack into a single root folder? I think
some of the reviewers of other IPMC releases have said they actually prefer
using separate folders.

- I find all the distro's and contents a bit confusing - javadoc is included

in the bin, src and samples distros, samples are included in the samples,
src, and impl distro, what is the impl distro? i

there's no javadoc in the src distros,  the javadoc in the samples distros
is for the samples,  the javadoc in the bin distro is for the API to assist
in programming.  This was how the discussion on archive organisation
resolved in M2.



Ok yes, that must have been a problem with things unpacking into the same
folder :) But still, javadoc is included in the bin and samples distros, the
samples are included in the samples and impl distros, and there are two src
distro's. Which isn't exactly straight forward. I guess none of this is a
blocker for this release, but in SCA we've now moved the sca-api module
under the sca folder, maybe the same should happen for SDO and then the next
release could be:
- a single src distribution that includes src for everything
- a binary distro that includes the binary jar's, the dependency jars, the
javadoc, and the samples
- the sdo api and impl jars deployed to the maven repo

  ...ant

Re: [VOTE] SDO Java Release M3

[kelvin goodson]

responses inline ...

On 12/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


More comments inline...

On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



- The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they are
> there in sdo-api directory)
>
> this is the anomaly that I pointed  out in the last release cycle in
> response to the requirement that each of the archives unpacks into a single
> root folder -- any commonly named files required to be in the root folder
> would overwrite one another,  hence their appearance in the next level
> down.  We can not satisfy both requirements!  Hence for each archive I was
> considering / to be the "root" folder


Must all the archives unpack into a single root folder?



that was what the comments from the IPMC ratification led me to believe was
best practice from the comments on the M2 release

- The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and include a

> non-ASF copyright - has this been discussed before, can we do this?
> This was as it was in M2 and M1.  I followed the established pattern.  I
> beleive this to be correct.


That we got away with it in M1 and M2 may have just been an oversight
which is why I asked if  there had been any discussion about it. I don't
remember any discussion. This doesn't seem correct to me, the sca-api files
have the ASF header and not any OSOA copyright, why are the sdo-api's
different? Didn't we develop all this code in Tuscany? The LICENSE in the
sdo-api jar says its under ASL. I think these need to be fixed or at least a
clear explanation found why its ok like this.



The code in the API source distribution archive is not developed in Tuscany
(apart from things like the HelperProvider implementation which has an ASF
license header).  I believe I recall checking that this was the correct way
to do things in M2.  I'll have to retrace my steps to verify this.

- There are no SDO artifact jars to review, are the SDO jars going to be

> installed to the Apache maven repository?
> The jars are in the binary distribution in the lib folder


I think they need to be separate so we can review the exact artifacts that
will be deployed to the maven repository including all the pom and
maven-metadata xml files along with the associated checksums and signatures.




this is different from the last release cycle, and I can't see any guidance
in the apache release management docs to this effect

- Is there a reason the bin distro unzips to
tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3whereas all the other distro's
(impl/samples/src) unzip to

> tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/sdo?
> the binary archive is the result of maven's default "best practice",
> the other archives are so in order to meet the above referenced requirement
> to unpack in to a common root directory.  I guess I could add a bin
> directory to the binary distribution,  but I think for the most part people
> will be downloading either the binary distro (perhaps with the samples) or
> the source distros.  It would be odd to bury the binary distro deeper I
> think,  but your suggestions are very welcome.


As above, must all the archives unpack into a single root folder? I think
some of the reviewers of other IPMC releases have said they actually prefer
using separate folders.



Well I certainly took it as a todo from the last release cycle to arrange
them the way I have done.

- I find all the distro's and contents a bit confusing - javadoc is included

> in the bin, src and samples distros, samples are included in the samples,
> src, and impl distro, what is the impl distro? i
>
> there's no javadoc in the src distros,  the javadoc in the samples
> distros is for the samples,  the javadoc in the bin distro is for the API to
> assist in programming.  This was how the discussion on archive organisation
> resolved in M2.


Ok yes, that must have been a problem with things unpacking into the same
folder :) But still, javadoc is included in the bin and samples distros, the
samples are included in the samples and impl distros, and there are two src
distro's. Which isn't exactly straight forward. I guess none of this is a
blocker for this release, but in SCA we've now moved the sca-api module
under the sca folder, maybe the same should happen for SDO and then the next
release could be:
 - a single src distribution that includes src for everything
 - a binary distro that includes the binary jar's, the dependency jars,
the javadoc, and the samples
 - the sdo api and impl jars deployed to the maven repo



As i said in my earlier response,  javadoc for how to use the binary
artifacts is included in the binary distribution, and javadoc for how to use
the samples is included in the samples distribution.  I will look at the
reorganisation you have done for SCA and see if this is the right thing for
SDO,  I suspect it is.  So the one remaining issue is that the sample code
is distributed twice,  once in the source distro and one separately.  This
is as a result of discussion

Re: [VOTE] SDO Java Release M3

[kelvin goodson]

Re the api files' headers.  I have retraced my steps and found the following


Treatment of Third-Party Works

  1. The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted directly
  to the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent.
  2. Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within
  third-party works.
  3. Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated
  license, even if that requires adding a copy of the license from the
  third-party download site into the distribution.
  4. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of
  third-party source files.
  5. Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should
  typically be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest of the
  third-party source for convenience.
  6. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with
  on a case-by-case basis by the PMC.


In this document http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html

Cheers, Kelvin.
On 12/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


More comments inline...

On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



- The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they are
> there in sdo-api directory)
>
> this is the anomaly that I pointed  out in the last release cycle in
> response to the requirement that each of the archives unpacks into a single
> root folder -- any commonly named files required to be in the root folder
> would overwrite one another,  hence their appearance in the next level
> down.  We can not satisfy both requirements!  Hence for each archive I was
> considering / to be the "root" folder


Must all the archives unpack into a single root folder?


- The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and include a
> non-ASF copyright - has this been discussed before, can we do this?
> This was as it was in M2 and M1.  I followed the established pattern.  I
> beleive this to be correct.


That we got away with it in M1 and M2 may have just been an oversight
which is why I asked if  there had been any discussion about it. I don't
remember any discussion. This doesn't seem correct to me, the sca-api files
have the ASF header and not any OSOA copyright, why are the sdo-api's
different? Didn't we develop all this code in Tuscany? The LICENSE in the
sdo-api jar says its under ASL. I think these need to be fixed or at least a
clear explanation found why its ok like this.


- There are no SDO artifact jars to review, are the SDO jars going to be
> installed to the Apache maven repository?
> The jars are in the binary distribution in the lib folder


I think they need to be separate so we can review the exact artifacts that
will be deployed to the maven repository including all the pom and
maven-metadata xml files along with the associated checksums and signatures.



- Is there a reason the bin distro unzips to 
tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3whereas all the other distro's (impl/samples/src) 
unzip to
> tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/sdo?
> the binary archive is the result of maven's default "best practice",
> the other archives are so in order to meet the above referenced requirement
> to unpack in to a common root directory.  I guess I could add a bin
> directory to the binary distribution,  but I think for the most part people
> will be downloading either the binary distro (perhaps with the samples) or
> the source distros.  It would be odd to bury the binary distro deeper I
> think,  but your suggestions are very welcome.


As above, must all the archives unpack into a single root folder? I think
some of the reviewers of other IPMC releases have said they actually prefer
using separate folders.

- I find all the distro's and contents a bit confusing - javadoc is
> included in the bin, src and samples distros, samples are included in the
> samples, src, and impl distro, what is the impl distro? i
>
> there's no javadoc in the src distros,  the javadoc in the samples
> distros is for the samples,  the javadoc in the bin distro is for the API to
> assist in programming.  This was how the discussion on archive organisation
> resolved in M2.


Ok yes, that must have been a problem with things unpacking into the same
folder :) But still, javadoc is included in the bin and samples distros, the
samples are included in the samples and impl distros, and there are two src
distro's. Which isn't exactly straight forward. I guess none of this is a
blocker for this release, but in SCA we've now moved the sca-api module
under the sca folder, maybe the same should happen for SDO and then the next
release could be:
 - a single src distribution that includes src for everything
 - a binary distro that includes the binary jar's, the dependency jars,
the javadoc, and the samples
 - the sdo api and impl jars deployed to the maven repo

   ...ant

Re: [VOTE] SDO Java Release M3

[ant elder]

Yes, I think that it probably is technically alright to include third-party
code with that license as source code in our SVN, so i guess this isn't a
release blocker. But if feels quite odd to me have the entire Tuscany SDO
API code like this, why couldn't this be the same as our SCA APIs where
we've just coded them up ourselves using the Apache license? Or else have
OSOA release the code themselves? Or donate them to Apache?

  ...ant

On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Re the api files' headers.  I have retraced my steps and found the
following

Treatment of Third-Party Works

   1. The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted
   directly to the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent.
   2. Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within
   third-party works.
   3. Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated
   license, even if that requires adding a copy of the license from the
   third-party download site into the distribution.
   4. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of
   third-party source files.
   5. Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should
   typically be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest of the
   third-party source for convenience.
   6. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with
   on a case-by-case basis by the PMC.


In this document http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html

Cheers, Kelvin.
On 12/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> More comments inline...
>
> On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
>
> - The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they
> > are there in sdo-api directory)
> >
> > this is the anomaly that I pointed  out in the last release cycle in
> > response to the requirement that each of the archives unpacks into a single
> > root folder -- any commonly named files required to be in the root folder
> > would overwrite one another,  hence their appearance in the next level
> > down.  We can not satisfy both requirements!  Hence for each archive I was
> > considering / to be the "root" folder
>
>
> Must all the archives unpack into a single root folder?
>
>
> - The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and include
> > a non-ASF copyright - has this been discussed before, can we do this?
> > This was as it was in M2 and M1.  I followed the established pattern.
> > I beleive this to be correct.
>
>
> That we got away with it in M1 and M2 may have just been an oversight
> which is why I asked if  there had been any discussion about it. I don't
> remember any discussion. This doesn't seem correct to me, the sca-api files
> have the ASF header and not any OSOA copyright, why are the sdo-api's
> different? Didn't we develop all this code in Tuscany? The LICENSE in the
> sdo-api jar says its under ASL. I think these need to be fixed or at least a
> clear explanation found why its ok like this.
>
>
> - There are no SDO artifact jars to review, are the SDO jars going to be
> > installed to the Apache maven repository?
> > The jars are in the binary distribution in the lib folder
>
>
> I think they need to be separate so we can review the exact artifacts
> that will be deployed to the maven repository including all the pom and
> maven-metadata xml files along with the associated checksums and signatures.
>
>
>
> - Is there a reason the bin distro unzips to
> > tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3 whereas all the other distro's
> > (impl/samples/src) unzip to tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/sdo?
> > the binary archive is the result of maven's default "best practice",
> > the other archives are so in order to meet the above referenced requirement
> > to unpack in to a common root directory.  I guess I could add a bin
> > directory to the binary distribution,  but I think for the most part people
> > will be downloading either the binary distro (perhaps with the samples) or
> > the source distros.  It would be odd to bury the binary distro deeper I
> > think,  but your suggestions are very welcome.
>
>
> As above, must all the archives unpack into a single root folder? I
> think some of the reviewers of other IPMC releases have said they actually
> prefer using separate folders.
>
> - I find all the distro's and contents a bit confusing - javadoc is
> > included in the bin, src and samples distros, samples are included in the
> > samples, src, and impl distro, what is the impl distro? i
> >
> > there's no javadoc in the src distros,  the javadoc in the samples
> > distros is for the samples,  the javadoc in the bin distro is for the API to
> > assist in programming.  This was how the discussion on archive organisation
> > resolved in M2.
>
>
> Ok yes, that must have been a problem with things unpacking into the
> same folder :) But still, javadoc is included in the bin and samples
> distros, the samples are included in the samples and impl distros, and there
> are 

Re: [VOTE] SDO Java Release M3

[kelvin goodson]

Ant,
  here's a bit more context,  since you asked about whether there had been
discussion of this topic ...


http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]

Cheers, Kelvin.

On 12/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


More comments inline...

On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



- The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they are
> there in sdo-api directory)
>
> this is the anomaly that I pointed  out in the last release cycle in
> response to the requirement that each of the archives unpacks into a single
> root folder -- any commonly named files required to be in the root folder
> would overwrite one another,  hence their appearance in the next level
> down.  We can not satisfy both requirements!  Hence for each archive I was
> considering / to be the "root" folder


Must all the archives unpack into a single root folder?


- The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and include a
> non-ASF copyright - has this been discussed before, can we do this?
> This was as it was in M2 and M1.  I followed the established pattern.  I
> beleive this to be correct.


That we got away with it in M1 and M2 may have just been an oversight
which is why I asked if  there had been any discussion about it. I don't
remember any discussion. This doesn't seem correct to me, the sca-api files
have the ASF header and not any OSOA copyright, why are the sdo-api's
different? Didn't we develop all this code in Tuscany? The LICENSE in the
sdo-api jar says its under ASL. I think these need to be fixed or at least a
clear explanation found why its ok like this.


- There are no SDO artifact jars to review, are the SDO jars going to be
> installed to the Apache maven repository?
> The jars are in the binary distribution in the lib folder


I think they need to be separate so we can review the exact artifacts that
will be deployed to the maven repository including all the pom and
maven-metadata xml files along with the associated checksums and signatures.



- Is there a reason the bin distro unzips to 
tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3whereas all the other distro's (impl/samples/src) 
unzip to
> tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/sdo?
> the binary archive is the result of maven's default "best practice",
> the other archives are so in order to meet the above referenced requirement
> to unpack in to a common root directory.  I guess I could add a bin
> directory to the binary distribution,  but I think for the most part people
> will be downloading either the binary distro (perhaps with the samples) or
> the source distros.  It would be odd to bury the binary distro deeper I
> think,  but your suggestions are very welcome.


As above, must all the archives unpack into a single root folder? I think
some of the reviewers of other IPMC releases have said they actually prefer
using separate folders.

- I find all the distro's and contents a bit confusing - javadoc is
> included in the bin, src and samples distros, samples are included in the
> samples, src, and impl distro, what is the impl distro? i
>
> there's no javadoc in the src distros,  the javadoc in the samples
> distros is for the samples,  the javadoc in the bin distro is for the API to
> assist in programming.  This was how the discussion on archive organisation
> resolved in M2.


Ok yes, that must have been a problem with things unpacking into the same
folder :) But still, javadoc is included in the bin and samples distros, the
samples are included in the samples and impl distros, and there are two src
distro's. Which isn't exactly straight forward. I guess none of this is a
blocker for this release, but in SCA we've now moved the sca-api module
under the sca folder, maybe the same should happen for SDO and then the next
release could be:
 - a single src distribution that includes src for everything
 - a binary distro that includes the binary jar's, the dependency jars,
the javadoc, and the samples
 - the sdo api and impl jars deployed to the maven repo

   ...ant

Re: [VOTE] SDO Java Release M3

[haleh mahbod]

Hi Kelvin,

I tried: tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3-bin.zip - ZIP archive, unpacked size
15,444,127 bytes

  - ReleaseNotes.txt says: Compatibility Concerns
M2 now uses the SDO 2.1 interfaces whereas M2 used the 2.0.1interfaces.

Shouldn't this be M3 now uses...

  - C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\readme.html

  This includes a link to M2 samples under this statement "

Sample source code is available to
downloadas a
separate distribution to accompany this binary distribution. Download
and unpack a suitable archive and follow the instructions in the archive to
build and run the samples.'

  - This file C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-
  
sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\sdo\sample\src\main\java\org\apache\tuscany\samples\sdo\overview.htmlsays
:To run these samples against the current Tuscany codebase, follow the
  instructions at Tuscany SDO Java
Overview,
  which describes how to build Tuscany SDO for Java in an Eclipse SDK
  environment.

  However at this page I see no  instructions. Should this be the
getInvolved link under development?

I ran into problems running the samples. I'll give it  another try again
tomorrow.

Haleh


On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Ant,
   here's a bit more context,  since you asked about whether there had
been
discussion of this topic ...



http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]

Cheers, Kelvin.

On 12/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> More comments inline...
>
> On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
>
> - The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they
are
> > there in sdo-api directory)
> >
> > this is the anomaly that I pointed  out in the last release cycle in
> > response to the requirement that each of the archives unpacks into a
single
> > root folder -- any commonly named files required to be in the root
folder
> > would overwrite one another,  hence their appearance in the next level
> > down.  We can not satisfy both requirements!  Hence for each archive I
was
> > considering / to be the "root"
folder
>
>
> Must all the archives unpack into a single root folder?
>
>
> - The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and include
a
> > non-ASF copyright - has this been discussed before, can we do this?
> > This was as it was in M2 and M1.  I followed the established
pattern.  I
> > beleive this to be correct.
>
>
> That we got away with it in M1 and M2 may have just been an oversight
> which is why I asked if  there had been any discussion about it. I don't
> remember any discussion. This doesn't seem correct to me, the sca-api
files
> have the ASF header and not any OSOA copyright, why are the sdo-api's
> different? Didn't we develop all this code in Tuscany? The LICENSE in
the
> sdo-api jar says its under ASL. I think these need to be fixed or at
least a
> clear explanation found why its ok like this.
>
>
> - There are no SDO artifact jars to review, are the SDO jars going to be
> > installed to the Apache maven repository?
> > The jars are in the binary distribution in the lib folder
>
>
> I think they need to be separate so we can review the exact artifacts
that
> will be deployed to the maven repository including all the pom and
> maven-metadata xml files along with the associated checksums and
signatures.
>
>
>
> - Is there a reason the bin distro unzips to
tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3whereas all the other distro's
(impl/samples/src) unzip to
> > tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/sdo?
> > the binary archive is the result of maven's default "best practice",
> > the other archives are so in order to meet the above referenced
requirement
> > to unpack in to a common root directory.  I guess I could add a bin
> > directory to the binary distribution,  but I think for the most part
people
> > will be downloading either the binary distro (perhaps with the
samples) or
> > the source distros.  It would be odd to bury the binary distro deeper
I
> > think,  but your suggestions are very welcome.
>
>
> As above, must all the archives unpack into a single root folder? I
think
> some of the reviewers of other IPMC releases have said they actually
prefer
> using separate folders.
>
> - I find all the distro's and contents a bit confusing - javadoc is
> > included in the bin, src and samples distros, samples are included in
the
> > samples, src, and impl distro, what is the impl distro? i
> >
> > there's no javadoc in the src distros,  the javadoc in the samples
> > distros is for the samples,  the javadoc in the bin distro is for the
API to
> > assist in programming.  This was how the discussion on archive
organisation
> > resolved in M2.
>
>
> Ok yes, that must have been a problem with things unpacking into the
same
> folder :) But still, javadoc is included in the bin and samples distros,
the
> samples are included i

Re: [VOTE] SDO Java Release M3

[haleh mahbod]

This file C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-
sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\sdo\sample\src\main\java\org\apache\tuscany\samples\sdo\overview.html
says  samples depend on the following libraries
EMF dependencies.

  - emf-common-{version}.jar - some common framework utility and base
  classes
  - emf-ecore-{version}.jar - the EMF core runtime implementation
  classes (the Ecore metamodel)
  - emf-ecore-change-{version}.jar - the EMF change recorder and
  framework
  - emf-ecore-xmi-{version}.jar - EMF's default XML (and XMI) serializer
  and loader

However what I find in the lib is
common-{version}.jar
ecore-change-{version}.jar
ecore-xmi-{version}.jar

Has the names changed or overview.html is wrong?


On 4/12/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hi Kelvin,

I tried: tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3-bin.zip - ZIP archive, unpacked size
15,444,127 bytes

   - ReleaseNotes.txt says: Compatibility Concerns
 M2 now uses the SDO 2.1 interfaces whereas M2 used the 2.0.1interfaces.

 Shouldn't this be M3 now uses...

   - C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\readme.html

   This includes a link to M2 samples under this statement "

Sample source code is available to 
downloadas a separate 
distribution to accompany this binary distribution. Download
and unpack a suitable archive and follow the instructions in the archive to
build and run the samples.'

   - This file C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-
   
sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\sdo\sample\src\main\java\org\apache\tuscany\samples\sdo\overview.htmlsays
 :To run these samples against the current Tuscany codebase, follow the
   instructions at Tuscany SDO Java 
Overview,
   which describes how to build Tuscany SDO for Java in an Eclipse SDK
   environment.

   However at this page I see no  instructions. Should this be the
getInvolved link under development?

 I ran into problems running the samples. I'll give it  another try again
tomorrow.

Haleh


On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ant,
>here's a bit more context,  since you asked about whether there had
> been
> discussion of this topic ...
>
>
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
>
> Cheers, Kelvin.
>
> On 12/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > More comments inline...
> >
> > On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> > - The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they
> are
> > > there in sdo-api directory)
> > >
> > > this is the anomaly that I pointed  out in the last release cycle in
> > > response to the requirement that each of the archives unpacks into a
> single
> > > root folder -- any commonly named files required to be in the root
> folder
> > > would overwrite one another,  hence their appearance in the next
> level
> > > down.  We can not satisfy both requirements!  Hence for each archive
> I was
> > > considering / to be the "root"
> folder
> >
> >
> > Must all the archives unpack into a single root folder?
> >
> >
> > - The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and
> include a
> > > non-ASF copyright - has this been discussed before, can we do this?
> > > This was as it was in M2 and M1.  I followed the established
> pattern.  I
> > > beleive this to be correct.
> >
> >
> > That we got away with it in M1 and M2 may have just been an oversight
> > which is why I asked if  there had been any discussion about it. I
> don't
> > remember any discussion. This doesn't seem correct to me, the sca-api
> files
> > have the ASF header and not any OSOA copyright, why are the sdo-api's
> > different? Didn't we develop all this code in Tuscany? The LICENSE in
> the
> > sdo-api jar says its under ASL. I think these need to be fixed or at
> least a
> > clear explanation found why its ok like this.
> >
> >
> > - There are no SDO artifact jars to review, are the SDO jars going to
> be
> > > installed to the Apache maven repository?
> > > The jars are in the binary distribution in the lib folder
> >
> >
> > I think they need to be separate so we can review the exact artifacts
> that
> > will be deployed to the maven repository including all the pom and
> > maven-metadata xml files along with the associated checksums and
> signatures.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Is there a reason the bin distro unzips to
> tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3whereas all the other distro's
> (impl/samples/src) unzip to
> > > tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/sdo?
> > > the binary archive is the result of maven's default "best practice",
>
> > > the other archives are so in order to meet the above referenced
> requirement
> > > to unpack in to a common root directory.  I guess I could add a bin
> > > directory to the binary distribution,  but I think for the most part
> people
> > > will be downloading either the binary distro (perhaps with the
> samples) or
> > > the source distros.  It w

Re: [VOTE] SDO Java Release M3

[kelvin goodson]

Hi Haleh,

comments inline ...


On 13/04/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hi Kelvin,

I tried: tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3-bin.zip - ZIP archive, unpacked size
15,444,127 bytes

   - ReleaseNotes.txt says: Compatibility Concerns
 M2 now uses the SDO 2.1 interfaces whereas M2 used the
2.0.1interfaces.

 Shouldn't this be M3 now uses...



Good spot ... thanks

  - C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\readme.html


   This includes a link to M2 samples under this statement "

Sample source code is available to
downloadas a
separate distribution to accompany this binary distribution. Download
and unpack a suitable archive and follow the instructions in the archive
to
build and run the samples.'



yes,  that's right,  the page also includes the M1 downloads, and after we
have a successful vote it will include the M3 downloads

  - This file C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-


sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\sdo\sample\src\main\java\org\apache\tuscany\samples\sdo\overview.htmlsays
:To run these samples against the current Tuscany codebase, follow the
   instructions at Tuscany SDO Java
Overview,
   which describes how to build Tuscany SDO for Java in an Eclipse SDK
   environment.

   However at this page I see no  instructions. Should this be the
getInvolved link under development?



yes,  this is a problem with the brittleness of including these links and
then changing the location/semantics of the info.  I'll look into it

I ran into problems running the samples. I'll give it  another try again

tomorrow.



OK,  thanks or your efforts in helping this along

Kelvin.

Haleh



On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ant,
>here's a bit more context,  since you asked about whether there had
> been
> discussion of this topic ...
>
>
>
>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
>
> Cheers, Kelvin.
>
> On 12/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > More comments inline...
> >
> > On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >
> > - The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory (they
> are
> > > there in sdo-api directory)
> > >
> > > this is the anomaly that I pointed  out in the last release cycle in
> > > response to the requirement that each of the archives unpacks into a
> single
> > > root folder -- any commonly named files required to be in the root
> folder
> > > would overwrite one another,  hence their appearance in the next
level
> > > down.  We can not satisfy both requirements!  Hence for each archive
I
> was
> > > considering / to be the "root"
> folder
> >
> >
> > Must all the archives unpack into a single root folder?
> >
> >
> > - The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and
include
> a
> > > non-ASF copyright - has this been discussed before, can we do this?
> > > This was as it was in M2 and M1.  I followed the established
> pattern.  I
> > > beleive this to be correct.
> >
> >
> > That we got away with it in M1 and M2 may have just been an oversight
> > which is why I asked if  there had been any discussion about it. I
don't
> > remember any discussion. This doesn't seem correct to me, the sca-api
> files
> > have the ASF header and not any OSOA copyright, why are the sdo-api's
> > different? Didn't we develop all this code in Tuscany? The LICENSE in
> the
> > sdo-api jar says its under ASL. I think these need to be fixed or at
> least a
> > clear explanation found why its ok like this.
> >
> >
> > - There are no SDO artifact jars to review, are the SDO jars going to
be
> > > installed to the Apache maven repository?
> > > The jars are in the binary distribution in the lib folder
> >
> >
> > I think they need to be separate so we can review the exact artifacts
> that
> > will be deployed to the maven repository including all the pom and
> > maven-metadata xml files along with the associated checksums and
> signatures.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Is there a reason the bin distro unzips to
> tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3whereas all the other distro's
> (impl/samples/src) unzip to
> > > tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/sdo?
> > > the binary archive is the result of maven's default "best practice",
> > > the other archives are so in order to meet the above referenced
> requirement
> > > to unpack in to a common root directory.  I guess I could add a bin
> > > directory to the binary distribution,  but I think for the most part
> people
> > > will be downloading either the binary distro (perhaps with the
> samples) or
> > > the source distros.  It would be odd to bury the binary distro
deeper
> I
> > > think,  but your suggestions are very welcome.
> >
> >
> > As above, must all the archives unpack into a single root folder? I
> think
> > some of the reviewers of other IPMC releases have said they actually
> prefer
> > using separate folders.
> >
> 

Re: [VOTE] SDO Java Release M3

[kelvin goodson]

Haleh,
 thanks for this,  It would appear that the documentation was wrong in M2
too.  I'll fix this.
Regards, Kelvin.


On 13/04/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


This file C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-

sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\sdo\sample\src\main\java\org\apache\tuscany\samples\sdo\overview.html
says  samples depend on the following libraries
EMF dependencies.

   - emf-common-{version}.jar - some common framework utility and base
   classes
   - emf-ecore-{version}.jar - the EMF core runtime implementation
   classes (the Ecore metamodel)
   - emf-ecore-change-{version}.jar - the EMF change recorder and
   framework
   - emf-ecore-xmi-{version}.jar - EMF's default XML (and XMI) serializer
   and loader

However what I find in the lib is
common-{version}.jar
ecore-change-{version}.jar
ecore-xmi-{version}.jar

Has the names changed or overview.html is wrong?


On 4/12/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Kelvin,
>
> I tried: tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3-bin.zip - ZIP archive, unpacked
size
> 15,444,127 bytes
>
>- ReleaseNotes.txt says: Compatibility Concerns
>  M2 now uses the SDO 2.1 interfaces whereas M2 used the
2.0.1interfaces.
>
>  Shouldn't this be M3 now uses...
>
>- C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\readme.html
>
>This includes a link to M2 samples under this statement "
>
> Sample source code is available to download<
http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANY/sdo-java-download.html>as a separate
distribution to accompany this binary distribution. Download
> and unpack a suitable archive and follow the instructions in the archive
to
> build and run the samples.'
>
>- This file C:\TuscanySDO\tuscany-
>
sdo-1.0-incubator-M3\sdo\sample\src\main\java\org\apache\tuscany\samples\sdo\overview.htmlsays:To
 run these samples against the current Tuscany codebase, follow the
>instructions at Tuscany SDO Java Overview<
http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANY/sdo-java.html>,
>which describes how to build Tuscany SDO for Java in an Eclipse SDK
>environment.
>
>However at this page I see no  instructions. Should this be
the
> getInvolved link under development?
>
>  I ran into problems running the samples. I'll give it  another try
again
> tomorrow.
>
> Haleh
>
>
> On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Ant,
> >here's a bit more context,  since you asked about whether there had
> > been
> > discussion of this topic ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
> >
> > Cheers, Kelvin.
> >
> > On 12/04/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > More comments inline...
> > >
> > > On 4/12/07, kelvin goodson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > - The src distro has no LICENSE or NOTICE in top level directory
(they
> > are
> > > > there in sdo-api directory)
> > > >
> > > > this is the anomaly that I pointed  out in the last release cycle
in
> > > > response to the requirement that each of the archives unpacks into
a
> > single
> > > > root folder -- any commonly named files required to be in the root
> > folder
> > > > would overwrite one another,  hence their appearance in the next
> > level
> > > > down.  We can not satisfy both requirements!  Hence for each
archive
> > I was
> > > > considering / to be the "root"
> > folder
> > >
> > >
> > > Must all the archives unpack into a single root folder?
> > >
> > >
> > > - The sdo-api src files don't have an Apache License header and
> > include a
> > > > non-ASF copyright - has this been discussed before, can we do
this?
> > > > This was as it was in M2 and M1.  I followed the established
> > pattern.  I
> > > > beleive this to be correct.
> > >
> > >
> > > That we got away with it in M1 and M2 may have just been an
oversight
> > > which is why I asked if  there had been any discussion about it. I
> > don't
> > > remember any discussion. This doesn't seem correct to me, the
sca-api
> > files
> > > have the ASF header and not any OSOA copyright, why are the
sdo-api's
> > > different? Didn't we develop all this code in Tuscany? The LICENSE
in
> > the
> > > sdo-api jar says its under ASL. I think these need to be fixed or at
> > least a
> > > clear explanation found why its ok like this.
> > >
> > >
> > > - There are no SDO artifact jars to review, are the SDO jars going
to
> > be
> > > > installed to the Apache maven repository?
> > > > The jars are in the binary distribution in the lib folder
> > >
> > >
> > > I think they need to be separate so we can review the exact
artifacts
> > that
> > > will be deployed to the maven repository including all the pom and
> > > maven-metadata xml files along with the associated checksums and
> > signatures.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Is there a reason the bin distro unzips to
> > tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3whereas all the other distro's
> > (impl/samples/src) unzip to
> > > > tuscany-sdo-1.0-incubator-M3/sdo?
> > > > the binary archive is the result

Re: [VOTE] SDO Java Release M3

[kelvin goodson]

Thank you for your feedback on RC2. I have created a new release candidate
on the basis of the comments I have received.  I'll close this vote and see
how we get on with this next RC before starting another vote.

RC3 is at http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/M3/RC3/
the tag, rat reports, and release notes remain the same as they were for the
start note of this thread.

For this iteration I have, fixed all the small typos and inaccuracies that
were pointed out in the README, LICENSE and samples documentation.  I've
also made sure the jar names are all consistent and rearranged the structure
of the samples archive a little,  including putting the correct javadoc in
that archive.  This slip caused me to build a script  for creating the
distribution  (
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12355518/buildSDORelease.bat)

The issue I haven't addressed yet is whether I should be publishing the
artifacts to the maven repo right now,  or when I start a new vote,  or when
that vote is completed.  Ant sent me some links to discussion threads from
other projects that have been  coming up against this issue,  which I'll
digest as soon as I can.  For your ref they are ...
http://marc.info/?t=11760705873&r=1&w=2
**http://marc.info/?l=incubator-general&m=117606976901938&w=2

Regards, Kelvin.

On 11/04/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Please vote to release the M3 distribution of Tuscany SDO for Java

The release candidate RC2 for Tuscany Java SDO is posted here 
http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/M3/RC2/
 The release
audit tool (rat) files and associated exceptions are attached to the jira
under which the release work was done, here  
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1171

The tag for the source code is here .
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sdo/1.0-incubator-M3/

Changes in this release are shown here . 
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sdo/1.0-incubator-M3/sdo/distribution/RELEASE_NOTES.txt



Thanks in advance,
Kelvin.