freemarker-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating
Date Thu, 07 Jan 2016 13:59:44 GMT
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.


> > 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


> * 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!

-- 
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message