qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>
Subject Re: M4 post-release process review
Date Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:25:37 GMT
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Rajith Attapattu <rajith77@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agree that Qpid as a project needs to pay more attention to licensing
> issues.
> I had to update a ton of files for the ASF header across all languages and
> it wasn't fun at all :)
> The addition of a GPL library was a honest mistake and should have been
> caught during the review process.

That's the thing I'm concerned about. Licensing Is Hard(tm), but we
should really have caught this earlier than we did. Fortunately there
was an obvious ASL-licensed drop-in replacement. Ripping out libs
while rolling release candidates is not something I want to make a
habit of though.

If our review process didn't catch this, we need another way of
managing dependency changes.

It was ok this time, and I don't want to get into a finger pointing
exercise. I just want to make sure that next time we don't roll a
release which depends on GNU Frobnicator and there isn't an obvious
replacement. That stuff seriously damages the hairline.

> The Java patch review has IMO improved compared to previous iterations. I
> got very good feedback for most of my patches.
> However I agree that certain areas had large code drops without much review,
> even when patches were posted and emails sent requesting review.

It wasn't just large code drops, there were a number of commits which
had their associated Jira either left Open or went straight to
resolved, totally bypassing the process.

- Aidan
-- 
Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing
http://qpid.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message