On 7/30/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/26/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Abdera podling has reached a point where the committers feel we're
> ready to cut a 0.1.0 "developer preview" / "developer milestone"
> release. We have +1's from all committers [1] and zero -1's.
>
> The release candidate is available at: http://people.apache.org/~jmsnell
>
> Java5 and JDK 1.4.2 versions are available, as well as a source
> distribution. All source contains appropriate copyright statements and,
> as far as I know, all dependency requirements have been met.
>
> Ant and Maven build options are available.
>
> Given that this is the first release, please forgive me if I have missed
> a step in here somewhere,
there's a lot of documentation that hasn't been written up yet do i'll
certainly do that :-)
> but from what I understand, the next step is
> to ask y'all to review and approve the release candidate.
i note that you haven't included sample MD5 sums and signatures.
that's fine if you're confident.
a few notes on best practice for future reference:
* the binary and source distributions should unpack to directories
with different names. this makes things more convenient for people who
download both source and binary versions. also makes it more obvious
when the source is downloaded. conventionally the source would unpack
to abdera-x.y.z-incubator-src.
This would be nice. Will look into it.
* list supported build tool versions (ant and maven) in the build
README (doesn't work with installation of maven 1.0.2)
Good point, will tweak.
* the MANIFEST files should comply with the various java standards on
this matter. these are really a long way away so i can't list just a
few corrections. creating complient releases should be included in the
release management guide very soon but for now see
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases/prepare.html#checkjarmanifest
This is one of those areas I'm pretty ignorant on, but I'll try and
take a look if nobody beats me to it.
important notes
* there are no license or notice files in the jars distributed in the
binary. though this is not necessarily a blocking issue, these
artifacts cannot be distributed as raw jars without them. therefore
these jars cannot be distributed through maven. if you want to do
this, you must include LICENSE and NOTICE files in the jars.
This does seem like something we should fix, I'll look into it soon.
blocking issues
* copyright headers missing from too many source files (pom.xmls,
build.xmls, numerous xml and xslt files, docs/*.html). not all of
these files will be substantial enough for copyright to exist in them
but IMHO there are so many that this should be addressed before
releasing.
IMO the license headers should be addressed before this release
I've added copyright headers to the docs, pom files, build.xml, and a
few java files that slipped in without them. So far I haven't added
them to the various .xml files in the test suites since, well, the
average feed you parse off of the net doesn't have a big honking
comment at the top, so it seems like we'd be deviating a bit from what
we intend to test. There are numerous files in numerous ASF projects
that don't contain embedded licenses (images, for example), I'm not
sure if this fits the same category, but I suspect it might.
Similarly I haven't added them to the properties files we parse at
runtime, since it seems silly to increase the size of the file by more
than an order of magnitude if all that data is just going to be run
over by the parser when it's looking for the data it needs.
Haven't merged this into the release branch yet, but it'll happen
before the release is rerolled. I'd also be curious what people think
about the test case xml files issue.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
