freemarker-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Dekany <ddek...@freemail.hu>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating
Date Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:12:48 GMT
Thursday, January 7, 2016, 2:59:44 PM, Sergio Fernández wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>
>> > I guess the timing picked is not the best for having more people on
>> > board...
>>
>> Yeah, but it was simply when the code was ready.
>
>
> True. Just keep in in mind for the future, specially with such small
> community is harder to get attention during holidays breaks.

(Holiday breaks and weekends is when I can find the most time to
develop FM...)

>> > BTW, the release manager can also vote a release.
>>
>> When he knows what's he doing... :)
>>
>
> :-)
>
>
>
>> * Release is not tagged in git tags, and vote mail does not contain
>> commit id to check.
>>
>> Indeed, the commit ID was missing.
>>
>
> In git, commit id is the single trustable reference to check the source.
> Release should be available somewhere, typically in a release branch while
> the vote is running.
>
>
>
>> As of tagging, I used to do that when the commit has actually made it
>> to become a public release, because tags are public. Is that good that
>> way?
>>
>> > * There is a URL to the maven staging area.
>>
>> You wanted to write that there's *no* URL? (We had no Maven access yet
>> when it was done.)
>>
>
> Yes, I actually wanted to say "there is *no" URL". From my experience
> staging repos are a very effective way to get early feedback from users who
> don't want to build the release from the code.
>
> You'll need to to push the release to Maven central, so it's better to have
> it as soon as possible. I already requested it to INFRA, see
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-11045

Sorry if I was misunderstandable. I did that days ago, and in
principle we have it already.

>> * Tarballs contain wrong source layout, the root directory contains
>> > no version details (apache-freemaker-src and
>> > apache-freemarker-gae-src respectively).
>>
>> OK. (The misinformation came from
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html: "For
>> project, Apache Foo (say) with source and binary types, it is
>> conventional for the main binary to unpack to apache-foo and the
>> source to apache-foo-src.".)
>
>
> Good point. Guides could be wrong or incomplete, so always ask if you have
> questions.
>
> I've just update it http://svn.apache.org/r1723530 to remark the best
> practice to include the version.
>
>
>
>> > * The section about the "files developed outside the FreeMarker
>> > project" in the LICENSE file should actually go in the NOTICE,
>> > specifying details there. I'd say the path should be full from the
>> > root of the sources: src/main/resources/freemarker/ext/...
>>
>> I did these.
>>
>
> AS I did not find them with the provided info, I guess all users may need
> the precise pointer.
>
>
>> I wonder, since the owner of FreeMarker is now the ASF, do we still
>> need to add notices for those DTD-s that are also Apache products
>> (though from a different project)?
>
>
> Owned by ASF, yes, but by another project, so should be noticed.
>
>
>
>> > * Also I'd move the "Historical notes" to the README.
>>
>> I have instead deleted them, if that's fine. I don't think they are
>> useful enough (or well visible for lawyer-types) to be in the README.
>> There's a page about the project history on the web site which covers
>> this topic.
>>
>
> Then fine to remove it.
>
>
>> * Source tree contains some JARs at
>> > src/test/resources/freemarker/ext/jsp/webapps/ that shoudl be noticed in
>> NOTICE
>>
>> Added them, also the OpenOffice files. These are all produced by the
>> FreeMarker project BTW.
>
>
> Good.
>
>
>> Thanks for your remarks, I will soon come up with a new attempt to
>> vote on!
>
>
> Great!
>

-- 
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany


Mime
View raw message