juddi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release jUDDI-3.1.0
Date Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:57:55 GMT
I think that unless you set up some exclusions you have to be careful to run 

mvn clean
mvn rat:check

or you get a lot of false arguments about stuff generated in the build.... that might be why
you get a larger number of problems than I did.

thanks
david jencks

On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Kurt T Stam wrote:

> On 6/14/11 7:30 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> -1
>> 
>> Aside from the build problems that someone might be able to convince me to overlook,
I ran
>> 
>> mvn rat:check
>> 
>> on the unpacked source zip which showed a lot of files (119) that did not have appropriate
licensing info.  It's possible that some of these can't for some kind of format reason but
the first few I checked certainly could.  If some of these can't have license headers I think
there's a way to include a rat exclusion list where we could document them.
> I'm getting: Too many unapproved licenses: 893
>    1. I think it does not like the copyright notices in the header.
>        * Copyright 2001-2011 The Apache Software Foundation,
> 
>    2. I manually checked some and some files sure have the license missing completely,
        so that sure needs fixing.
>> I noticed a comment in juddi-portal/README that maven 2.0.6 should be used.  If this
is true for the entire project I think some updating is needed.
>> 
>> I have some workarounds for the build issues I ran into that involve:
>> 
>> - using derby 10.6.2.1
>> - using geronimo jta spec instead of (sun?) javaee specs
>> - using geronimo javamail and changing the NotifierTest.testSMTPNotifier to expect
to pass.
>> 
>> I'd also prefer to see a lot of pom cleanup using dependency management to eliminate
repetition of version info.
>> 
>> If everyone's happy with this idea I'm happy to update the poms in this way.
> Fine by me.
>>  It might be better for someone more familiar with all the files to look at the license
issue.
> ok I will go through a round of clean up on this.
>> BTW I prefer to see vote emails that give the explicit location of the source bundle
and make clear that it is what is being voted on, not the tag or binaries.
> Fair enough
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> 
>> On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Kurt T Stam wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi guys,
>>> 
>>> At some point the planned 'quick 3.0.5 release', turned into a much more substantial
release. One of
>>> the major features was to support JAX-WS 2.2, and we beefed up the client code
substantially. Since we
>>> added so much new code this release is now labeled 3.1.0.
>>> 
>>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/juddi/tags/juddi-3.1.0/
>>> 
>>> nexus: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejuddi-068/
>>> 
>>> Please not that the uddi-ws-3.1.0 comes in 2 flavors: by default it is compiled
against the JAX-WS 2.2 spec, but we also
>>> release a uddi-ws-3.1.0-jaxws21.jar with a 'jaxws21' classifier to support JAX-WS
2.1 deployment environments.
>>> 
>>> Also I have updated the website to reflect the 3.1.0 release:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/juddi/site/
>>> 
>>> Please give it a spin and cast your vote in the next 72 hours!
>>> 
>>> My vote: +1
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> --Kurt
> 


Mime
View raw message