robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 10/19/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> the source is the heart of any apache release. most issues with
> releases are actually issues with the source. a community that does
> not understand how to create source that can be released cannot (in my
> opinion) graduate.
But then you are aware that we always have been very careful about our
source. We have created oversight processes specifically tailored to
special IP issues we face, and consider this on every contribution, and
every third- party dependency we use.
i have no doubts about the process. releases, though, have proved to
be an educational process here in the incubator.
i ran RAT against the snapshots. not bad but has a few of the usual
problems (some missing license headers from property, configuration,
scripts and css documents). as mentioned, unless harmony's policy is
to discourage people from posting jars in the repositories they need
LICENSE and NOTICE files.
We put that into the build on tues when it was pointed out. That's done.
Of course, people can do what they want with our artifacts. However,
unlike other projects where it makes sense to place dependency jars in
maven repos for re-use by others, the deliverable from harmony is a full
JDK - JVM + classlibrary + tools, with jars and the native code required
by the jars, in dll's and .so's. So it's not clear why you would be
posting those jars to a maven repo, as you need the supporting natives
+ a JVM that uses our class library interface to use them. There are
only two in the world right now, the Harmony DRLVM, and the proprietary
IBM J9.
But whatever - they are there now in META-INF.
i also think that antlr's license is missing
from the third party licenses. (RAT doesn't match jars with
NOTICE/LICENSE yet so there may be more.)
Good catch.
(i'll run RAT against the source and submit a JIRA or something with
the issues but may be later on next week. alternatively, checked the
source out from http://code.google.com/p/arat/ but it's very user
unfriendly...)
Why not bring it to incubator? Maybe someone could help make it
friendly to use. Make it easier for podlings to leave. Heck, make it
a checkbox requirement.
I'm pretty resigned to the fact that we won't be able to reach a
conclusion by this board meeting. Ah well. It would have been nice.
It's not up to you to do this - even if we're not going to get a
resolution to the board by this meeting, it's up to us to find and fix,
and we'll want to do sooner than later to so we can get back to work. I
just pray that when it reports clean, you'll be satisfied.
no serious concerns (problems look like oversights) but there's still
some work need...
Out of curiosity, have you run this tool on the releases of TLPs?
What's the error rate?
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
