uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marshall Schor <...@schor.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache UIMA Ruta 2.2.0 RC2
Date Sat, 15 Feb 2014 21:51:42 GMT
Verified signatures
verify signatures / md5 / sha1 in repository - ruta core -OK.  (Got Martin's key
from mit pgp server)
verify signatures for source-release

The verification says Martin's key is not part of a trust ring - I would
recommend cross-signing your key by those physically near  you :-) 

Checked issues fixed - looks ok

Did a build from sources - OK

compared sources / svn tag - OK

I installed the ruta plugins into a fresh 4.3.1 Eclipse -  OK.  I did this
trick: I first "added" the main UIMA eclipse update site
(http://www.apache.org/dist/uima/eclipse-update-site), but I didn't install
anything.  Then I put in the RUTA site, and left the box checked to have install
contact all the sites when looking for other artifacts; the install process then
contacted the main UIMA site for the plugins it needed - worked like a charm :-)

I noticed that some but not all of the internal projects within the examples
folder (example-project, extensions-project, TextRulerExample) have their own
license/notice - which can be a maintenance issue - for example, these have a 2013
end date in the Notice part.  Normally, the License/Notice files are put at the
top level of a distribution; I'm not sure why they're here.

The NOTICE file in many places has duplicate info for creative commons that's
also part of license file.  Normally any information that's already in the
License file should not be also duplicated in the Notices file.  The Notices
file is for things which are not part of the license terms, but need to be
present (such as copyrights).  See

https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple

where it says, in part:
    However, elements such as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD
and MIT licenses need not be duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those
notices in their original locations.

Looks like the build process for the individual project Javadoc jars is
including the license /notice files appropriate for jars containing Icons from
Mark James, but those Jars don't have those icons.

Also the Mark James attribution in both notice and license has an extra "the" in
front of Mark James:
    This product contains icons developed by the Mark James  --- should read:
    This product contains icons developed by Mark James

These NOTICE issues are minor, and not release blockers, I think.

[x] +1 OK to release

-Marshall

Mime
View raw message