On 11/16/06, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The OpenJPA incubator community voted on and has approved a proposal to release OpenJPA 0.9.6-incubating. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy (http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/ Incubation_Policy.html#Releases ) we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC to publish the release zip file on the openjpa download page (http://cwiki.apache.org/openjpa/ downloads.html).
i have some issues i'd like to see fixed plus less important issues, some questions i'd like answered and some comments just FYI -- issues (i would like to see fixed) -- http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openjpa.html has some unresolved copyright issues. i trust that this just means that the status page hasn't been updated. openjpa distributes some jars in the binary. NOTICE.txt is ok (but note http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html now asks that apache collective copyright is included) but their licenses are not included in LICENSE.txt. see http://incubator.apache.org/guides/examples/LICENSE for example. source distribution is missing LICENSE, NOTICE and DISCLAIMER at the top level. (these probably need to be commit into svn.) -- minor issues -- http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openjpa/tags/0.9.6-incubating/src/site/apt/*.apt lack license headers. apt supports comments so these should probably have headers. -- questions -- i can't find LICENSE, NOTICE or DISCLAIMER in openjpa-all-0.9.6-incubating.jar. did you intend to prevent official distribution through maven repositories? (RAT) http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openjpa/tags/0.9.6-incubating/openjpa-jdbc/src/main/resources/org/apache/openjpa/jdbc/schema/schemas-doctype.rsrc has no license header. is this a generated file? http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openjpa/tags/0.9.6-incubating/openjpa-persistence/src/main/resources/org/apache/openjpa/persistence/orm-xsd.rsrc has no license header. is this a generated file? -- comments -- --- notes and suggestions (for future reference) --- there is no need to create sums for detached signatures. some users (typically on *nix) prefer either bz2'd or tar.gz's distributions. creating additional artifacts is quick and easy so this is an easy way to make life just a little easier for some users. i personally prefer the source and binary distributions to unpack to different directories but the overlay style (both unpack to the same directory forming a combined product) is also good if a little effort is invested into it. there is no RELEASE_NOTES in the base directory. for open source projects, these serve as an important communication to users. the content will often serve for reuse in announcements and other grassroots publicity. consider creating them for the next release. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
