Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Portals Pluto Maven Archetypes 3.0.0

Hi Woonsan,

OK, I will rollback and re-release with the header present in the following files:

- pom.xml
- src/main/resources/META-INF/maven/archetype-metadata.xml
- src/main/resources/META-INF/maven/archetype.xml

Additionally, I will move from the Log4J API to the SLF4J API.

Would it be OK if I specify "org.slf4j:slf4j-log4j12" as the logging implementation?

Also, if I complete the work today, then will it require a new 72 hour voting process?


Thank you,

Neil

On 4/25/17 11:36 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Neil Griffin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi Woonsan,
>>
>> I don't think that I have the administrative privileges to fix the staging
>> repository visibility problem you encountered.
>>
>> But thank you for your careful observations. Regarding the licensing, the
>> Apache 2.0 License is specified in the pom.xml descriptor of each archetype:
>>
>>           <license>
>>               <name>Apache License, Version 2.0</name>
>>               <url>http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0</url>
>>           </license>
>>
>> Also, the archetype JAR artifacts contain the text of the Apache 2.0 License
>> in the META-INF/LICENSE file.
>>
>> The reason why license "headers" are not present in files like
>> HelloWorldPortlet.java is because archetype files are essentially templates
>> that will be used by the "mvn archetype:generate" command to create a new
>> project. The developer would then be free to apply whatever license they
>> want to their newly generated portlet project.
> 
> It's totally fine not to have license headers in archetype-generated
> files like HelloWorldPortlet.java.
> My concerns were at these files, which are the archetype source
> itself, not generated ones, for instance:
> - pom.xml
> - src/main/resources/META-INF/maven/archetype-metadata.xml
> - src/main/resources/META-INF/maven/archetype.xml
> 
> I think those three files must have license headers.
> 
>>
>> Regarding log4j, I would be happy to migrate to the SLF4J API in a future
>> dot release.
> 
> Cool!
> 
>>
>> Please let me know whether or not I have addressed your concerns to your
>> satisfaction.
> 
> Without proper license headers in those three files, I don't think
> that's qualified for a proper Apache release.
> Sometimes we miss license headers in some source files unintentionally
> in a bigger project, which might be excused, but in this case, it's
> obvious that we totally forgot adding the headers in the whole
> project, IMHO.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Woonsan
> 
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>> On 4/24/17 11:46 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Neil Griffin
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Apache Portals Pluto Team and community,
>>>>
>>>> I have staged a release candidate for the new Apache Portals Pluto Maven
>>>> Archetypes 3.0.0 release,
>>>> which includes the following two artifacts:
>>>>
>>>> <groupId>org.apache.portals.pluto.archetype</groupId>
>>>> <artifactId>bean-portlet-archetype</artifactId>
>>>> <packaging>maven-archetype</packaging>
>>>>
>>>> <groupId>org.apache.portals.pluto.archetype</groupId>
>>>> <artifactId>generic-portlet-archetype</artifactId>
>>>> <packaging>maven-archetype</packaging>
>>>>
>>>> Please review the release candidate which is available from the following
>>>> maven staging repository:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheportals-1016
>>>
>>>
>>> This link doesn't work for me. I managed to find the staging repo at
>>> https://repository.apache.org/#stagingRepositories.
>>> It shows "404 - Repository "orgapacheportals-1016 (staging: open)"
>>> [id=orgapacheportals-1016] exists but is not exposed" when clicked on,
>>> regardless whether or not I signed in https://repository.apache.org/.
>>> Does anyone know the reason?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This vote is open for the next 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> Please cast your vote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if it is desirable to release this. When I downloaded the
>>> bean-portlet-archetype-3.0.0-source-release.zip from the Nexus, I
>>> could hardly find source files with Apache License header [1]. Most
>>> files are missing the license header.
>>> Wouldn't it be more desirable to correct this issue first?
>>>
>>> And, one minor thing to remark is that the archetype is using log4j
>>> v1, neither slf4j nor log4j v2. AFAIK, pluto project itself and its
>>> submodules such as container have used slf4j as logging API and log4j
>>> as a default binding. Not a major, but just something to consider
>>> later perhaps...
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Woonsan
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 for Release
>>>> [ ]  0  for Don't care
>>>> [ ] -1 Don't release (do provide a reason then)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>
>>>
>>
>