I have put them in a whitepapers folder: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wave/whitepapers/
On 3 June 2013 22:15, Angus Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/> >>> * >>> >> >>
