RAT, but it can be a bit overly sensitive. Ali On 17 Jul 2014 17:37, "Yuri Z" <vega...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there some tool to verify that all files have the licences? > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Michael MacFadden < > michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > All, > > > > Although I have been dormant. I am willing to help out with the release > > in any way possible. If you need some one to go through the release and > > test it. Or post it up to he web site once we have it ready let me know. > > I haven¹t helped out in a while, so I would love to contribute. > > > > ~Michael > > > > On 7/12/14, 6:05 AM, "Ali Lown" <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > > > > >Yuri, > > > > > >AFAIK both of these can be TODOs can be removed now. > > > > > >Thanks, > > >Ali > > > > > >On 12 July 2014 14:01, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Ok, great. This is a great Wiki. I ll try to go the steps and later to > > >>add > > >> a release job to jenkins so the release process will be automated. Off > > >> course if someone want to help with release stuff - it would be great > :) > > >> The wiki contains two todos: > > >> 1. ODO: Do we need Extension-Name, Implementation-Vendor-Id as well? > > >> 2. Check export status of any cryptographic dependencies. (Unknown > > >> currently whether we need an ECCN or not) > > >> > > >> Regarding the 2- I think we got rid of it, is it right? > > >> Regarding 1 - @Ali can you comment? > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Yuri, > > >>> > > >>> I started writing up the 'procedure' here: > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WAVE/Release+Procedure > It > > >>> needs updating now that we use git rather than svn. > > >>> > > >>> If we could get jenkins building the releases that would be great! > > >>> (wave-artifacts doesn't seem to be generating the src releases?) > > >>> > > >>> Once the artifacts are made (ant release, or equivalent), then the > > >>> next step is to manually verify the contents are as expected, and to > > >>> sign it. > > >>> I have a very small script to sign all the files using my key, and to > > >>> generate the SHA512 sums for the files: http://pastebin.com/05wBkWd1 > > >>> > > >>> Once that is done, send it to the wave list to vote upon... > > >>> Once that is done, send it to the incubator list to vote upon... > > >>> Once that is done, release! ;) > > >>> > > >>> Ali > > >>> > > >>> On 12 July 2014 13:21, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > Thanks for update Ali. > > >>> > I think the release is important to show that we handled all the > > >>> copyright > > >>> > issues, so I would prefer just to release as is and then add the > > >>>patch > > >>> > later. > > >>> > Anyway, let's try to do the release stuff for rc 05. Are there any > > >>> scripts > > >>> > that should be run? What is the procedure? > > >>> > By the way, I already added a Jenkins job to create the release > > >>>artifact > > >>> - > > >>> > https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/Wave/job/wave-artifacts/ > > >>> > So, if could to automate the licenses verification and signing we > > >>>could > > >>> > release just by running the job in Jenkins... > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> >> RC4 was merged back in to master around January, and development > has > > >>> >> continued in master from there.. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> I don't recall any major show stoppers with RC4. A look at the > vote > > >>> >> thread suggests that the only problems left to discuss were the > > >>>images > > >>> >> in thumbnail_patterns, for which we could find no copyright > > >>> >> assignment. But we fixed this problem in 48c3bc9, by changing the > > >>> >> thumbnails to some we could attribute. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> On a meta level, the problem at the time was that RC4 had a very > > >>>poor > > >>> >> vote turnout, disincentivizing further work. > > >>> >> (And on a personal level, I ran out of time I could put towards > > >>>Wave) > > >>> >> > > >>> >> I don't think there is anything stopping us putting together RC5 > > >>>over > > >>> >> this weekend. > > >>> >> (Since we would want to take from current master, a check of the > > >>> >> licenses will be required to be redone). > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Is there interest in RC5? > > >>> >> (And do we want to put Frank's fulltextsearch patches in?) > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Thanks, > > >>> >> Ali > > >>> >> > > >>> >> On 12 July 2014 12:35, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> >> > I think I merged the rc 0.4 into master a while ago. But I don't > > >>> remember > > >>> >> > what were the issues that prevented from us to release rc 0.4. > > >>> >> > @Ali, so you remember what were the issues? > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Christian Grobmeier < > > >>> >> grobme...@gmail.com> > > >>> >> > wrote: > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> >> Hi folks, > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> before quite a while, we were discussing a release. It's still > > >>>not > > >>> >> there, > > >>> >> >> and I would like to know what the actual problem is. > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> As you know, releases are considered a sign of a healthy > project > > >>>in > > >>> the > > >>> >> >> incubator. > > >>> >> >> It's currently discussed within the IPMC why projects which > don't > > >>> manage > > >>> >> >> to make a release > > >>> >> >> after a year should stay in the incubator. > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> Regards, > > >>> >> >> Christian > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> --- > > >>> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de > > >>> >> >> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL > > >>> >> >> @grobmeier > > >>> >> >> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >
