On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga < > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have >> taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very >> seriously. >> >> It is for that very reason that, for example, we’d like rat exclusions to >> be discussed and not ignored and for it also to be affirmed that our test >> data (some of which is necessarily pseudo code) to not need to be licensed >> since doing so would break our build and explicit Apache guidelines specify >> that in these cases no license header is required — which is precisely why >> we excluded them via rat and precisely why those exlusions should be >> discussed, not ignored. >> > > The problem though is that rat exclusions are meant to be a sign of things > that have been vetted and confirmed as not apache licensed, but still > acceptable for inclusion. Most projects I have seen use rat exclusions do > it for: > > - build output, we don't care nor should we care, about the output of a > build from the source release > - Files that are licensed as other Cat A > - Files that can't have a header for technical reasons > > It is typical that when the IPMC reviews a release, the contents of rat > exclusions are checked first, to confirm that nothing is accidentally > excluded that shouldn't be, or that it is excluded and properly licensed. > > I'm inclined to vote -1 at this point as well.. I want confirm that the > list of issues Justin raised have been entered in your backlog. To me, the > minimum amount of work that has to be done to convert to a +1 is: > > - Remove the binary zip files from the source release > - Every issue raised by Justin represented in JIRA somewhere
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta+rc3 Gj > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be Apache > license > - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from > other locations > > > >> >> Gj >> >> On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat >> > exclusions >> > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC >> > > members evaluating a release. >> > >> > Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide things. >> > I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so perhaps I >> have >> > some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course choose >> to >> > ignore it. >> > >> > > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot >> > simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted >> > > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based >> > on >> > > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored. >> > >> > Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in later >> > releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF licensing or >> > release policy. I suggest you try are fix those. >> > >> > > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our >> > mentors to advise on their perspective on this too. >> > >> > That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your mentors >> > can vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be totally >> > fine if you got 3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is the >> only >> > -1.That’s how Apache works. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Justin >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > 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
