Hey Ali, Maybe the easiest thing with the whitepaper and spec directories is to move them onto the wiki. seems a bit weird to have documentation like that included within a release...
Once I've got them locally I'll submit a review request with those folders deleted... Thanks Angus Turner [email protected] On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Alain Levesque <[email protected]>wrote: > +1 since 2010 and it's never, never and did I mention never to late. Bravo! > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Ali Lown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Looking back over this, in preparation of doing some more work on this. > > Comments/questions inlined: > > > > > - Unusual CHANGES file: I usually see people adding issue numbers our > of > > > Jira > > > > The Wave Jira is fairly incomplete wrt. actual changes that have > > occurred. (I would estimate about half of the changes have Jira > > tickets, all recent ones have review board numbers, but early commits > > have neither). > > > > As such, I saw it mentioned in the Common's guide that the use of an > > 'svn log' instead was not strange. > > > > What do you suggest doing with this instead? > > > > > - Example NOTICE file: > http://www.apache.org/licenses/example-NOTICE.txt > > , > > > > Ok. I shall rewrite this to be in that style. > > > > > Mockito is not mentioned with link as the others > > > > Will be added. :) > > > > > - server-config.xml, jsongadgets.json, jaas.config no license. Maybe > > others > > > too? Please utilize: http://creadur.apache.org/rat/ it's a great tool > to > > > check our licenses > > > > Rat looks useful. I will add a note to the release page and on the > > wiki, but I think it will be easiest to run standalone ATM. (Perhaps > > it can be made part of the mavenized process though). > > > > > - request_codereview wrong license (Google Inc)? > > > > I am not even sure why this file hasn't been deleted yet. It was only > > used for the old Google code reviews, and doesn't work with > > review-board. (And has no reason to be made to work with it). I will > > remove this file. > > > > > - files in /spec - allowed to distribute? No License given, where do > > these > > > files come from? > > > > These files are the whitepapers behind the conversation and federation > > protocols that Google wrote. Should I just add the license header to > > them and leave them where they are? > > > > > - src folder: we usually use org.apache prefix. Not seen any classes > with > > > that > > > > Heh. You are correct that the org.apache prefix is not used at-all. > > The majority of the code lives under the org.waveprotocol namespace > > (for legacy reasons). Changing to use org.apache is a fairly major > > undertaking, and would serve little purpose if the next release is > > going to be mavenized (with the full codebase relocation that brings). > > > > > - thirdparty: allowed to distribute? Check with compatible licenses. > Full > > > list whats working what not is here: > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a > > > > My understanding from the work Angus did is that these are all under > > licenses allowing distribution. We have an ant task (ant > > get-third-party) for the few we are not allowed to distribute. > > > > > - Wave Logo (/war) seems to miss TM symbol. Please check: > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs.html > > > > I assume you are referring to war/static/logo.png. Notably this is a > > different image to the logo used on the incubator website. (Which also > > lacks a TM). > > > > Which of these should be used? Should they both have a trademark? > > > > > - Whats the meaning of wave-0.4-release folder? > > > > A good question. I don't remember seeing that before, but it > > definitely shouldn't be there. :P > > (It appears my branch folder wasn't quite as clean as I thought). > > > > > - Whats the meaning of whitepapers folder? > > > > This holds the rest of the whitepapers, but these are older than the > > ones in spec/, and are no-longer fully up-to-date wrt. the code. > > Though still often contain useful information explaining why something > > has been done in the way that it has. > > > > Should I just add the license header and leave them there? > > > > Alternatively, perhaps spec/ and whitepapers/ would be better licensed > > and moved into doc/? > > > > Ali > > > > > > -- > Alain Levesque Wavewatchers > Wavyemailbeta:* > * > *Web Page <http://albonobo.com/> > * >
