On further inspection they contain all the stuff to build them as well, it really looks like they should be in a different repo. Or at least not included in a release. Not sure what we should do here...
Thanks Angus Turner [email protected] On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Angus Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/> >> * >> > >
