On 14/04/2010, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > On 14/04/2010 21:06, sebb wrote: > > Many of the java and xml files in tomcat-lite don't have AL headers. > > Not an issue. tomcat-lite isn't being shipped (at least it shoudln't be..)
It's currently in the source archives. Also, SVN is considered by some to be publishing code (e.g. links are usually published on the web-site) so better safe than sorry. > > The following other files don't have AL headers: > > > > res/config.ini > > res/jvm.ini > > test/org/apache/coyote/http11/TestInternalInputBuffer.java > > test/org/apache/naming/resources/TestBaseDirContext.java > > > > The java files definitely need AL headers. > > Yep. fixed. > > > > I don't know the syntax of the .ini files, so it may be impossible to > > add comments, but if comments are possible, then the appropriate > > header should be added as these are not trivial files. > > I think I have the format for this. Need to build the installer to test it. > > > > 2 files in BCEL have IBM headers; these headers are presumably OK, but > > the NOTICE file probably needs to mention IBM. Not sure why the BCEL > > source archive does not do so in its NOTICE file. That might be an > > error. > > Hmm. I might be able to strip down what we use from BCEL to get rid of > those. > > > > Otherwise the source archives and SVN tag look OK, and they agree with > > each other apart from .classpath and .project, which aren't needed in > > the archives. > > As expected. > > > The binary archives generally look good, with N&L files and useful > manifests. > > However, the Implementation-version headers include -RC1. > > Not sure that's correct; depends how the RC is promoted to GA. > > Current thinking is tag with another vote that should be quick as folks > will just need to diff the approved RC with the new source tarball. > > > There is a minor problem with the bin/tomcat-juli.jar - the NOTICE says: > > Copyright 19...@year@ > > I'll take a look. > Just noticed - RELEASE-NOTES in source archive contains: "Tomcat @VERSION_MAJOR_MINOR@ is designed to run on Java SE 6 and later. In addition, Tomcat @VERSION_MAJOR_MINOR@ uses the Eclipse JDT Java compiler for" A few other source files also have similar tags (I searched for "@VERSION_"). I think the tags in the RELEASE-NOTES (and RUNNING.txt) ought to be processed to correspond with the release. This is not so clear for some of the other files - are they supposed to be the same as the SVN versions, or should they be customised for the release? Also, in the Windows binary archives, service.bat includes an RC1 reference: set PR_DESCRIPTION=Apache Tomcat 7.0.0-RC1 Server - http://tomcat.apache.org/ As do various copies of Release Notes and index.html I assume the other binary archives are similar, but I did not check them. I would have thought that these version references should omit the RC1 suffix, unless the code is to be released as such (which has been known in other projects). > > And for some odd reason there is an MD5 hash for it in the directory. > > The file could probably be removed. > > And at that. > > > > The bin/tomcat-native.tar.gz file includes a KEYS file which probably > > does not belong. > > Since it can be a separate download, I'm happy with that. It's OK, just unnecessary. In fact KEYS is present in the source archives too. > > > My vote would be -1 because of the licensing issues. > > Yep. RC2 coming up. > > > Mark > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
