On 23 February 2012 20:44, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 23/02/12 18:32, sebb wrote:
>
> Hi sebb,
>
> Thanks for the review,
>
>
>>> == Staging repository
>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejena-001/
>>
>> This contains zip and tar.gz binary and source archives, which should
>> be deleted as they are not useful to Maven.
>
>
> There are two addition classifiers used: source-release and distribution.
>
> To take the file jena-tdb-0.9.0-incubating-source-release.zip specifically,
> this gets there because
>
> mvn release:perform -Papache-release
>
> puts it there. This seems to be the practice elsewhere as well:
>
> e.g.
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/org/apache/sling/org.apache.sling.engine/2.2.4/
>
>
> For "distribution":
>
> We distribute through maven but also many of our users are not experienced
> developers but students, including ones new to java.
>
> To make it as easy as possible for this category of user, we ship a
> distribution which is the collection of jars needed for use without a
> maven/ivy infrastructure.
That's fine, so long as the N&L files agree with the contents.
> This is created in the maven target/ area - and it is then renamed into the
> dist/ area as apache-jena* by the distribution build script. Maven forces
> the name to be jena-tdb-.... on staging whatever assembly root name is
> given.
Again that's OK, but the layout of the dist area - and the naming
convention - is very confusing.
There is no direct correspondance between the binary and source archives.
It should be immediately obvious how to find the source and
corresponding binary, but that's not the case at present.
>
>>> == SVN tag
>>> >
>>> > The module is currently tagged with the version and "-RC-4". If voted
>>> > on
>>> > successfully, the tag will be changed ("svn mv") to the same but minus
>>> > the
>>> > "RC" labelling.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/jena/Jena2/TDB/tags/jena-tdb-0.9.0-incubating-RC-4/
>>
>> There are a lot of source files without AL headers.
>> These need to be fixed.
>>
>
> Could you say which ones you mean?
>
> Following the recent discussion on this (LEGAL-124), I thought the
> conclusion was it wasn't necessary on short files with little or no
> creativity or value.
>
> The files in testing/ are short test files - we do put the ASF header on the
> manifests.
>
> e.g:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/jena/Jena2/TDB/tags/jena-tdb-0.9.0-incubating-RC-4/testing/Pattern/pattern-1.rq
>
> ----
> PREFIX : <http://example/OTHER>
>
> SELECT *
> {
> :NoSuchNode ?p ?z .
> ?x ?p ?z
> }
> ----
> I found
> A total of 118 files that do not contain th line
> "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under"
>
> 67 under testing/
> 25 are scripts
The scripts can all have AL headers; there are some XML files as well
that could have them.
There is one Java file that has no AL header.
> 12 are NOTICE/LICENSE/DEPENDENCIES etc.
These are OK
> and then there setting and eclipse files that you have commented on before.
>
> (aside: we tried autogenerating Eclipse files following previous comments
> but encountered problems with eclipse:eclipse which we are investigating)
No need to autogenerate; just don't store them with the default names or paths.
Perhaps store them under a resources/eclipse directory.
>
> Andy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
