On 2018-01-22 12:36, John D. Ament wrote:
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
Looking at the files called process_start_<platform>.zip (items
[26...29] listed by Justin), I *think* their content was (once)
created/compiled from source, present in that same folder?
Might it be feasible to have those build/compiled at build time?
Possibly not (its C code, so maybe not easily done).
If not, are there alternatives?
- Every issue raised by Justin represented in JIRA somewhere
- 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
ENTs? (unclear to me what type of files are you referring to)
Concerning XSDs or DTDs under EPL/EDL etc, as Justin already noted,
I think it might be just fine to keep them included, just require
appropriate labeling as described under
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
"For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF
product at runtime in source form, and for which that source is
unmodified and unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being
specified by a standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source
is also permitted."
The follow-up from Justin concerning possible restrictions on commercial
use with regards to http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=317 however got me
worried.
*That* would impact not just Netbeans but a whole range of other ASF
projects as well!
Ate
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
