Hi, here is my release check report:
Checking signatures and digests: ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.zip gpg: GOOD md5 : GOOD (ea8139b858465f698c5dbb0d78c16d59) sha1 : GOOD (d79a51b21fa9a1b4c6e3c3a340ae4fb91a8768ff) ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.zip gpg: GOOD md5 : GOOD (10e85e05e70f1516064dcd6275c29d87) sha1 : GOOD (38a0c67603a229a1e69df9e0f84cf60a4c7f998c) ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.tar.gz gpg: GOOD md5 : GOOD (b65ada108e4a5a77d7ee9b082f541e09) sha1 : GOOD (46878a7d526d1f2772cae3a09f1bf6b80b0f320f) ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.zip gpg: GOOD md5 : GOOD (8f9ea8941e4b95e75d9401407fb2584c) sha1 : GOOD (375919d247506418d7cd665eb476a167e5aaddbc) ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.tar.gz gpg: GOOD md5 : GOOD (357650a1ce9d9c152809b09b7d6c6746) sha1 : GOOD (a39a22d81a39e44b87eb602c167df5445576c6c6) ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.zip gpg: GOOD md5 : GOOD (5d2fb7b0e7f7aeb5a0af63593e92ee02) sha1 : GOOD (b205e7fd4ad7417296a52dd5a7971566dced9eab) ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.tar.gz gpg: GOOD md5 : GOOD (5def4c8565f16a2d8cdde0583813594e) sha1 : GOOD (3c859a0f799f0c3226d08e26551d327f12d14d5a) ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.tar.gz gpg: GOOD md5 : GOOD (1aaa20cd9141a064bd2db5703bdbcff2) sha1 : GOOD (81ea6669516ae30f9a2a56489e673e9635c5eab7) ################### Checking ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-src.tar.gz NOTICE.txt The following notice is not required and could be removed. I think it is okay for this release but it should be removed to keep the NOTICE minimal. The reason for removal is that these are not legal statements that are required by the licenses of the those bundles. In addition, the source distribution of this product contains: - software based on IzPack licensed under Apache License 2.0 - software based on D3.js licensed under New BSD License - software based on Dracula Graph Library licensed under MIT License - software based on strftime licensed under New BSD License - software based on JQuery licensed under MIT License - software based on CodeMirror licensed under Apache License 2.0 - software based on D2R Snorql licensed under Apache License 2.0 - software based on script.aculo.us licensed under Apache License 2.0 - software based on Prototype licensed under Apache License 2.0 - software based on SPARQL Flint Editor licensed under Apache License 2.0 - software based on Sgvizler license under a MIT-style license - software based on MigLayout licensed under New BSD License - software based on SwingBits licensed under New BSD License - software based on rometools licensed under the Apache License 2.0 - software based on jsonld-java licensed under the New BSD License Note: "Sgvizler license under a MIT-style license" -> In LICENSE.txt it is listed as "MIT". Homepage also just says "MIT" and not "MIT-style". LICENSE.txt looks good. Checking release matches tag: Only in tags/3.0.0-incubating/: .git Only in tags/3.0.0-incubating/: .gitignore Only in tags/3.0.0-incubating//platform/marmotta-sparql/src/main/resources/web/admin/editor: .gitignore -> Looks good. Checking build: mvn clean install - > Build Success RAT check: mvn apache-rat:check The apache-rat check always uses the following excludes defined in the parent POM for all artifacts Exclude: **/*.txt Exclude: **/atlassian-ide-plugin.xml Exclude: **/README.* Exclude: **/NOTICE.* Exclude: **/.* Exclude: **/.*/* Exclude: **/.*/**/* Exclude: **/target/** Exclude: doc/api/**/* Exclude: .gitignore Exclude: .git/** Exclude: *.sh Exclude: .git/** Exclude: .idea/** Exclude: .eclipse/** Exclude: **/*.iml Exclude: **/*.ipr Exclude: **/*.iws Exclude: **/*.psd Exclude: **/*.out Exclude: **/*.log Exclude: **/jquery*.js Exclude: **/jquery*.css Exclude: **/foundation.js Exclude: **/strftime.js Exclude: **/customforms.js Exclude: **/pageguide.js Exclude: **/raphael-dracula.pack.min.js Exclude: **/dygraph/** Exclude: **/sgvizler/** Exclude: **/js/lib/** Exclude: **/src/ext/** Exclude: **/src/main/resources/task-dialog*.properties Exclude: **/src/test/resources/org/apache/marmotta/commons/sesame/rio/jsonld/** Exclude: **/src/test/resources/org/apache/marmotta/commons/sesame/rio/vcard/*.vcf Exclude: **/META-INF/** Exclude: **/*.kwrl Exclude: **/*.ldpath Exclude: **/*.search Exclude: **/*.ics Exclude: **/*.json The problem with this configuration is that you will not be informed about a missing license header, e.g., in some *.json file. This way someone may use in the future a JSON file that is missing license information (may even have another license) and the rat check will pass. With this RAT report I can not be really sure that everything is fine. Just too many global excludes. IMHO excludes should be configured and documented on a per artifact level. This is at least what we do in Stanbol. I do not know if this is a blocker. Is there another way to check that all files have proper license headers? ################### Checking ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer.tar.gz Checking ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath.tar.gz Checking ./apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-webapp.tar.gz While extracting the tar.gz I realized that all the different archives are extracted to "apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating". This is a bit confusing. Why not use "apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-installer", "apache-marmotta-3.0.0-incubating-ldpath" etc? LICENSE looks good for all packages NOTICE same as above. "Additionally, it includes the following 3rd party modules:" The list is not necessary. The NOTICE is not a file to list dependencies or included modules. You may create an additional file for such information. ################### Summary vote: 0 (for the moment) because I am unsure about the rat check. At least I am not really convinced that the license headers are fine in all cases. Beside that, really great work guys! Really impressive how fast you are adopting to the Apache way and learning all these details. The issues that I raised are only minor and easy to fix. Maybe I am nit-picking a bit but it is just to make you aware of certain details. I think, you are on very good way. Best, - Fabian 2013/3/19 Sebastian Schaffert <[email protected]>: > Dear all, > > Andy rightly suggested to restart the vote for the 3.0.0-incubating release > with the correct information. So I'd like to cancel the previous vote and > restart it. Please reply to the following vote: > > ===== > A candidate for the Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating release is available at: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/marmotta/3.0.0-incubating/ > > The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in: > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-marmotta.git > > with the tag "3.0.0-incubating". > > The SHA1 checksum of the archive is > 38a0c67603a229a1e69df9e0f84cf60a4c7f998c. > > A staged Maven repository is available for review at: > > https://repository.apache.org/**content/repositories/** > orgapachemarmotta-006/<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemarmotta-006/> > > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating. > The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at > least three +1 Marmotta PMC votes are cast. > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Marmotta 3.0.0-incubating > [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... -- Fabian http://twitter.com/fctwitt
