[VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi!

Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.

Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5

Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).

[+1] ship it
[+0] meh, don’t care
[-1] nope, stop because ${reason}

The VOTE is open for 72h.

Here is my +1.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

jlmonteiro
Romain, 

as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?

Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi!

Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.

Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5

Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).

[+1] ship it
[+0] meh, don’t care
[-1] nope, stop because ${reason}

The VOTE is open for 72h.

Here is my +1.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Romain Manni-Bucau
yep, as written ;)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
Romain, 

as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?

Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi!

Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.

Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5

Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).

[+1] ship it
[+0] meh, don’t care
[-1] nope, stop because ${reason}

The VOTE is open for 72h.

Here is my +1.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

John D. Ament
Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include

This product includes software developed at
OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)

There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
yep, as written ;)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
Romain, 

as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?

Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi!

Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.

Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5

Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).

[+1] ship it
[+0] meh, don’t care
[-1] nope, stop because ${reason}

The VOTE is open for 72h.

Here is my +1.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Romain Manni-Bucau


Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include

This product includes software developed at
OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)

There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.

Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
yep, as written ;)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
Romain, 

as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?

Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi!

Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.

Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5

Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).

[+1] ship it
[+0] meh, don’t care
[-1] nope, stop because ${reason}

The VOTE is open for 72h.

Here is my +1.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

John D. Ament
ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.

My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:


Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include

This product includes software developed at
OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)

There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.

Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
yep, as written ;)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
Romain, 

as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?

Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi!

Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.

Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5

Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).

[+1] ship it
[+0] meh, don’t care
[-1] nope, stop because ${reason}

The VOTE is open for 72h.

Here is my +1.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Romain Manni-Bucau


Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.

My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.

It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.




On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:


Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include

This product includes software developed at
OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)

There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.

Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
yep, as written ;)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
Romain, 

as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?

Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi!

Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.

Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5

Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).

[+1] ship it
[+0] meh, don’t care
[-1] nope, stop because ${reason}

The VOTE is open for 72h.

Here is my +1.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Romain Manni-Bucau
Ok checked back and the notice rules are strict on one asf page and less on another one, guess this is where the divergence came.

I feel quite bad to drop it from notice since it is a key dependency with a very particular license (BSD-3-Clause+custom).
I think it does worth mentionning it for end users but we don't have such standard file @asf, right?

Is it a big deal to keep it this way?



Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-14 19:00 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:


Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.

My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.

It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.




On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:


Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include

This product includes software developed at
OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)

There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.

Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
yep, as written ;)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
Romain, 

as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?

Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi!

Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.

Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5

Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).

[+1] ship it
[+0] meh, don’t care
[-1] nope, stop because ${reason}

The VOTE is open for 72h.

Here is my +1.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Jay McHugh-2
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
The notice file appears to have been introduced to deal with a deficiency tracked as Jira issue XBEAN-283.


My vote: +1

We can review the merits of that issue separately and if it turns out that it is decided to be redundant to have the notice file - we can note it and remove the file later.

I don't think that it is necessary to hold up the release for something that has been unquestioned for nearly three years.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:00 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:


Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.

My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.

It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.




On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:


Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include

This product includes software developed at
OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)

There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.

Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
yep, as written ;)


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
Romain, 

as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?

Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi!

Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.

Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5

Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).

[+1] ship it
[+0] meh, don’t care
[-1] nope, stop because ${reason}

The VOTE is open for 72h.

Here is my +1.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Mark Struberg
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
+1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license

> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)

+1 from me.


LieGrue,
strub


> Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
>
>
> Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.
>
> My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
>
> It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include
>
> This product includes software developed at
> OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>
> There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.
>
> Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> yep, as written ;)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
> 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
> Romain,
>
> as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>
> Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>
> Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>
> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>
> [+1] ship it
> [+0] meh, don’t care
> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>
> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>
> Here is my +1.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

John D. Ament-2


On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license

> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)

+1 from me.


Sorry but you're incorrect.  The copyright claim is already present by copying in their license file.
 

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
>
>
> Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.
>
> My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
>
> It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include
>
> This product includes software developed at
> OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>
> There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.
>
> Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> yep, as written ;)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
> 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
> Romain,
>
> as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>
> Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>
> Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>
> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>
> [+1] ship it
> [+0] meh, don’t care
> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>
> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>
> Here is my +1.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

John D. Ament


On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license

> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)

+1 from me.


Sorry but you're incorrect.  The copyright claim is already present by copying in their license file.

BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a notice file


There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
 
 

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
>
>
>
> Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.
>
> My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
>
> It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include
>
> This product includes software developed at
> OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>
> There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.
>
> Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> yep, as written ;)
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
> 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
> Romain,
>
> as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>
> Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>
> Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>
> Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>
> [+1] ship it
> [+0] meh, don’t care
> [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>
> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>
> Here is my +1.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Mark Struberg
I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and not 'MUST NOT'.
Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show stopper imo.

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
>
> > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >
> > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> >    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> >   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
>
> +1 from me.
>
>
> Sorry but you're incorrect.  The copyright claim is already present by copying in their license file.
>
> BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a notice file
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
>
> There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
>  
>  
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.
> >
> > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
> >
> > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include
> >
> > This product includes software developed at
> > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
> >
> > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.
> >
> > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > yep, as written ;)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
> > Romain,
> >
> > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
> >
> > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Hi!
> >
> > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
> >
> > Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> > The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
> >
> > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
> >
> > [+1] ship it
> > [+0] meh, don’t care
> > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
> >
> > The VOTE is open for 72h.
> >
> > Here is my +1.
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> >

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Romain Manni-Bucau
@John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have another discuss thread about it for you - legally we are ok anyway?


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and not 'MUST NOT'.
Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show stopper imo.

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
>
> > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >
> > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> >    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> >   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
>
> +1 from me.
>
>
> Sorry but you're incorrect.  The copyright claim is already present by copying in their license file.
>
> BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a notice file
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
>
> There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
>
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.
> >
> > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
> >
> > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include
> >
> > This product includes software developed at
> > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
> >
> > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.
> >
> > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > yep, as written ;)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
> > Romain,
> >
> > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
> >
> > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Hi!
> >
> > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
> >
> > Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> > The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
> >
> > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
> >
> > [+1] ship it
> > [+0] meh, don’t care
> > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
> >
> > The VOTE is open for 72h.
> >
> > Here is my +1.
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> >


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Romain Manni-Bucau
Up John? Are you ok to change your vote to a -0 and not veto the release since we are good legally but just didnt respect a good practise?

If not I can rerun the release tomorrow and add another not standard file to replace our notice mention but i dont see any reason to require another vote for that for now.


Le 15 mars 2018 07:11, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
@John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have another discuss thread about it for you - legally we are ok anyway?


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and not 'MUST NOT'.
Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show stopper imo.

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
>
> > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >
> > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> >    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> >   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
>
> +1 from me.
>
>
> Sorry but you're incorrect.  The copyright claim is already present by copying in their license file.
>
> BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a notice file
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
>
> There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
>
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.
> >
> > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
> >
> > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include
> >
> > This product includes software developed at
> > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
> >
> > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.
> >
> > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > yep, as written ;)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
> > Romain,
> >
> > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
> >
> > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Hi!
> >
> > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
> >
> > Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> > The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
> >
> > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
> >
> > [+1] ship it
> > [+0] meh, don’t care
> > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
> >
> > The VOTE is open for 72h.
> >
> > Here is my +1.
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> >


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

John D. Ament


On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 4:39 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
Up John? Are you ok to change your vote to a -0 and not veto the release since we are good legally but just didnt respect a good practise?

-1's on releases are never vetos.  Very surprised you don't know this.  You should review [1] and [2] esp since you're a new chair.


 

If not I can rerun the release tomorrow and add another not standard file to replace our notice mention but i dont see any reason to require another vote for that for now.


Le 15 mars 2018 07:11, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
@John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have another discuss thread about it for you - legally we are ok anyway?


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book

2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and not 'MUST NOT'.
Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show stopper imo.

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament <[hidden email]>:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
>
> > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >
> > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> >    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> >   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
>
> +1 from me.
>
>
> Sorry but you're incorrect.  The copyright claim is already present by copying in their license file.
>
> BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not go into a notice file
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
>
> There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
>
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause products, the copyright statement (including download link) is in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.
> >
> > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
> >
> > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side. If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM shaded dependency) include
> >
> > This product includes software developed at
> > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
> >
> > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we should not need to declare any notice.
> >
> > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > yep, as written ;)
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[hidden email]>:
> > Romain,
> >
> > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
> >
> > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > Hi!
> >
> > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
> >
> > Here is the staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
> > The source distribution can be found here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
> > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
> >
> > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
> >
> > [+1] ship it
> > [+0] meh, don’t care
> > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
> >
> > The VOTE is open for 72h.
> >
> > Here is my +1.
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
> >
> >
> >


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi,

there's no veto for release, even with a -1. So, if you are fine with
this and address in next release, we can proceed.

Regards
JB

On 18/03/2018 21:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:

> Up John? Are you ok to change your vote to a -0 and not veto the release
> since we are good legally but just didnt respect a good practise?
>
> If not I can rerun the release tomorrow and add another not standard
> file to replace our notice mention but i dont see any reason to require
> another vote for that for now.
>
>
> Le 15 mars 2018 07:11, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>
>     @John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have another discuss
>     thread about it for you - legally we are ok anyway?
>
>
>     Romain Manni-Bucau
>     @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>     <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>     <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>     <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>     <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>     <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>     2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>         I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and
>         not 'MUST NOT'.
>         Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show
>         stopper imo.
>
>         LieGrue,
>         strub
>
>          > Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>          >
>          >
>          >
>          > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>          > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>          > +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
>          >
>          > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above
>         copyright
>          > >    notice, this list of conditions and the following
>         disclaimer.
>          > >
>          > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
>         copyright
>          > >    notice, this list of conditions and the following
>         disclaimer in the
>          > >   documentation and/or other materials provided with the
>         distribution.
>          >
>          > It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
>          >
>          > +1 from me.
>          >
>          >
>          > Sorry but you're incorrect.  The copyright claim is already
>         present by copying in their license file.
>          >
>          > BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not
>         go into a notice file
>          >
>          > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
>         <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262>
>          >
>          > There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
>          >
>          >
>          >
>          > LieGrue,
>          > strub
>          >
>          >
>          > > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>          > >
>          > >
>          > >
>          > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament"
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>          > > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the
>         consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause
>         products, the copyright statement (including download link) is
>         in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.
>          > >
>          > > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
>          > >
>          > > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must
>         be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side.
>         If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
>          > >
>          > >
>          > >
>          > >
>          > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>          > >
>          > >
>          > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament"
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>          > > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM
>         shaded dependency) include
>          > >
>          > > This product includes software developed at
>          > > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>          > >
>          > > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we
>         should not need to declare any notice.
>          > >
>          > > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project
>         so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a
>         bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
>          > >
>          > >
>          > >
>          > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>          > > yep, as written ;)
>          > >
>          > >
>          > > Romain Manni-Bucau
>          > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>          > >
>          > > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>          > > Romain,
>          > >
>          > > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
>          > >
>          > > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>          > > Hi!
>          > >
>          > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>          > >
>          > > Here is the staging repo:
>         https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>         <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049>
>          > > The source distribution can be found here:
>         https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>         <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip>
>          > > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>          > >
>          > > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>          > >
>          > > [+1] ship it
>          > > [+0] meh, don’t care
>          > > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>          > >
>          > > The VOTE is open for 72h.
>          > >
>          > > Here is my +1.
>          > >
>          > >
>          > > Romain Manni-Bucau
>          > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>          > >
>          > >
>          > >
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Romain Manni-Bucau
I know but releasing with a -1 is irrespect for the community and I dont want to pass in force for a notice. Will recreate it later today.

Is it ok to put a readme.adoc for you in metainf?


Le 19 mars 2018 07:27, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi,

there's no veto for release, even with a -1. So, if you are fine with this and address in next release, we can proceed.

Regards
JB

On 18/03/2018 21:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Up John? Are you ok to change your vote to a -0 and not veto the release since we are good legally but just didnt respect a good practise?

If not I can rerun the release tomorrow and add another not standard file to replace our notice mention but i dont see any reason to require another vote for that for now.


Le 15 mars 2018 07:11, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :

    @John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have another discuss
    thread about it for you - legally we are ok anyway?


    Romain Manni-Bucau
    @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
    <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
    <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
    <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
    <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
    <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>

    2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]
    <mailto:[hidden email]>>:

        I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need not' and
        not 'MUST NOT'.
        Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show
        stopper imo.

        LieGrue,
        strub

         > Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament
        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
         >
         >
         >
         > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament
        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
         > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg
        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
         > +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
         >
         > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above
        copyright
         > >    notice, this list of conditions and the following
        disclaimer.
         > >
         > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
        copyright
         > >    notice, this list of conditions and the following
        disclaimer in the
         > >   documentation and/or other materials provided with the
        distribution.
         >
         > It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
         >
         > +1 from me.
         >
         >
         > Sorry but you're incorrect.  The copyright claim is already
        present by copying in their license file.
         >
         > BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and should not
        go into a notice file
         >
         > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
        <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262>
         >
         > There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being excluded.
         >
         >
         >
         > LieGrue,
         > strub
         >
         >
         > > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau
        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
         > >
         > >
         > >
         > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament"
        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
         > > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the
        consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause
        products, the copyright statement (including download link) is
        in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.
         > >
         > > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
         > >
         > > It is not incorrect since the license is particular it must
        be in notice to be able to put all parts together on user side.
        If you dont you let users do again this job which is insanely bad.
         > >
         > >
         > >
         > >
         > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
         > >
         > >
         > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament"
        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
         > > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for the ASM
        shaded dependency) include
         > >
         > > This product includes software developed at
         > > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
         > >
         > > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we
        should not need to declare any notice.
         > >
         > > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf project
        so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their website look a
        bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to completely drop it.
         > >
         > >
         > >
         > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
         > > yep, as written ;)
         > >
         > >
         > > Romain Manni-Bucau
         > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
         > >
         > > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
         > > Romain,
         > >
         > > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM upgrade, right?
         > >
         > > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau
        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
         > > Hi!
         > >
         > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
         > >
         > > Here is the staging repo:
        https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
        <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049>
         > > The source distribution can be found here:
        https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
        <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip>
         > > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
         > >
         > > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
         > >
         > > [+1] ship it
         > > [+0] meh, don’t care
         > > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
         > >
         > > The VOTE is open for 72h.
         > >
         > > Here is my +1.
         > >
         > >
         > > Romain Manni-Bucau
         > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
         > >
         > >
         > >


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] XBean 4.7 release

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Fair enough for me.

About my e-mail, it's just a question of wording: just don't use "veto" ;)

Regards
JB

On 19/03/2018 07:43, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:

> I know but releasing with a -1 is irrespect for the community and I dont
> want to pass in force for a notice. Will recreate it later today.
>
> Is it ok to put a readme.adoc for you in metainf?
>
>
> Le 19 mars 2018 07:27, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>
>     Hi,
>
>     there's no veto for release, even with a -1. So, if you are fine
>     with this and address in next release, we can proceed.
>
>     Regards
>     JB
>
>     On 18/03/2018 21:39, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
>         Up John? Are you ok to change your vote to a -0 and not veto the
>         release since we are good legally but just didnt respect a good
>         practise?
>
>         If not I can rerun the release tomorrow and add another not
>         standard file to replace our notice mention but i dont see any
>         reason to require another vote for that for now.
>
>
>         Le 15 mars 2018 07:11, "Romain Manni-Bucau"
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> a
>         écrit :
>
>              @John: is it ok to keep it for this release and have
>         another discuss
>              thread about it for you - legally we are ok anyway?
>
>
>              Romain Manni-Bucau
>              @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau
>         <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>> | Blog
>              <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/
>         <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/>> | Old Blog
>              <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
>         <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com>> | Github
>              <https://github.com/rmannibucau
>         <https://github.com/rmannibucau>> | LinkedIn
>              <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>         <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>> | Book
>            
>         <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>         <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>>
>
>              2018-03-15 1:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>              <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>:
>
>                  I see. Note that the updated guideline does say 'need
>         not' and
>                  not 'MUST NOT'.
>                  Yes we should probably remove it. But no, it's not a show
>                  stopper imo.
>
>                  LieGrue,
>                  strub
>
>                   > Am 15.03.2018 um 01:01 schrieb John D. Ament
>                  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>:
>                   >
>                   >
>                   >
>                   > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM John D. Ament
>                  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>         wrote:
>                   > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Mark Struberg
>                  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>                   > +1 it's not incorrect. Please read the BSD3c license
>                   >
>                   > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the
>         above
>                  copyright
>                   > >    notice, this list of conditions and the following
>                  disclaimer.
>                   > >
>                   > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce
>         the above
>                  copyright
>                   > >    notice, this list of conditions and the following
>                  disclaimer in the
>                   > >   documentation and/or other materials provided
>         with the
>                  distribution.
>                   >
>                   > It needs noticing. That's why we put it into NOTICE ;)
>                   >
>                   > +1 from me.
>                   >
>                   >
>                   > Sorry but you're incorrect.  The copyright claim is
>         already
>                  present by copying in their license file.
>                   >
>                   > BTW here's a legal ticket explain what should and
>         should not
>                  go into a notice file
>                   >
>                   > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
>         <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262>
>                  <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262
>         <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-262>>
>                   >
>                   > There's an explicit call out to MIT and BSD being
>         excluded.
>                   >
>                   >
>                   >
>                   > LieGrue,
>                   > strub
>                   >
>                   >
>                   > > Am 14.03.2018 um 19:00 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau
>                  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>:
>                   > >
>                   > >
>                   > >
>                   > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament"
>                  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> a
>         écrit :
>                   > > ASF policy is that NOTICE files are present when the
>                  consumed product includes a NOTICE file.  In BSD-3-Clause
>                  products, the copyright statement (including download
>         link) is
>                  in the license file.  So its enough to list it there.
>                   > >
>                   > > My vote: -1 due to incorrect NOTICE file.
>                   > >
>                   > > It is not incorrect since the license is
>         particular it must
>                  be in notice to be able to put all parts together on
>         user side.
>                  If you dont you let users do again this job which is
>         insanely bad.
>                   > >
>                   > >
>                   > >
>                   > >
>                   > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
>                  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>         wrote:
>                   > >
>                   > >
>                   > > Le 14 mars 2018 18:30, "John D. Ament"
>                  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> a
>         écrit :
>                   > > Why does the NOTICE file in the resulting JAR (for
>         the ASM
>                  shaded dependency) include
>                   > >
>                   > > This product includes software developed at
>                   > > OW2 Consortium (http://asm.ow2.org/)
>                   > >
>                   > > There is no notice file associated with ASM 6.1, so we
>                  should not need to declare any notice.
>                   > >
>                   > > Well it is not an asf licensed software nor an asf
>         project
>                  so it is no bad IMHO to list it here. Also their
>         website look a
>                  bit outdated so I was not sure it was that ok to
>         completely drop it.
>                   > >
>                   > >
>                   > >
>                   > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:54 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
>                  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>         wrote:
>                   > > yep, as written ;)
>                   > >
>                   > >
>                   > > Romain Manni-Bucau
>                   > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github |
>         LinkedIn | Book
>                   > >
>                   > > 2018-03-14 17:51 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis MONTEIRO
>                  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>:
>                   > > Romain,
>                   > >
>                   > > as far as I have seen, there is only the ASM
>         upgrade, right?
>                   > >
>                   > > Le mer. 14 mars 2018 à 17:49, Romain Manni-Bucau
>                  <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> a
>         écrit :
>                   > > Hi!
>                   > >
>                   > > Please VOTE for the release of Apache XBean-4.7.
>                   > >
>                   > > Here is the staging repo:
>         https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>         <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049>
>                
>         <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049
>         <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049>>
>                   > > The source distribution can be found here:
>         https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>         <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip>
>                
>         <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip
>         <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1049/org/apache/xbean/xbean/4.7/xbean-4.7-source-release.zip>>
>                   > > sha1 is ea25f3fda5d9abea891a62abf738d1024f289dd5
>                   > >
>                   > > Change is only about upgrade asm to 6.1 (java 10).
>                   > >
>                   > > [+1] ship it
>                   > > [+0] meh, don’t care
>                   > > [-1] nope, stop because ${reason}
>                   > >
>                   > > The VOTE is open for 72h.
>                   > >
>                   > > Here is my +1.
>                   > >
>                   > >
>                   > > Romain Manni-Bucau
>                   > > @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github |
>         LinkedIn | Book
>                   > >
>                   > >
>                   > >
>
>