Community
Participate
Working Groups
We'll use this bug to track the release We require IP Team approval of the IP Log. We require PMC approval of the release and review materials. There's help regarding releases in the handbook. https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#release
The project is under the EPL-1.0. Is it possible to update to the EPL-2.0 for this release? If not, then I need for it to be a priority item following this release. Please advise. I'm getting an error when I try to build leshan.osgi (master). [FATAL] Non-resolvable parent POM for org.eclipse.leshan:leshan-osgi-parent:0.1.11-M7-SNAPSHOT: Could not find artifact org.eclipse.leshan:leshan:pom:0.1.11-M7-SNAPSHOT and 'parent.relativePath' points at wrong local POM @ line 5, column 10 I don't see build instructions anywhere, so I'm just naively running the pom.xml in the root of the repository. Am I missing something?
> I'm getting an error when I try to build leshan.osgi (master). Never mind. I see the "not maintained anymore" message in the README.
The IP Log is approved.
The release is named "1.0"; can we reasonably assume that we will combine a Graduation Review with the Release Review?
> The project is under the EPL-1.0. Is it possible to update > to the EPL-2.0 for this release? We can try to do that. What is the process ? is it as simple as just replace the licence file and the licence name ? > I'm getting an error when I try to build leshan.osgi (master). People who contributed/maintained it, disappeared and community did not react before or after, so we stop to maintain it. (see : https://www.eclipse.org/lists/leshan-dev/msg00969.html) > The release is named "1.0"; can we reasonably assume > that we will combine a Graduation Review with the Release Review ? Yep. Is there something more to do ?
> We can try to do that. What is the process ? is it as simple as just replace > the licence file and the licence name ? Yes, that. Change the license file and references to the license in the file headers. > People who contributed/maintained it, disappeared and community did not > react before or after, so we stop to maintain it. If it's not being maintained, ask the webmaster to mark the repository as archived. We started a discussion a while ago about moving archived repositories to an "eclipse-attic" organization (Bug 516014). Do you think we should move this repository there? > > The release is named "1.0"; can we reasonably assume > > that we will combine a Graduation Review with the Release Review ? > > Yep. Is there something more to do ? I've marked the review record as being a combined Release and Graduation review. Please inform the PMC that their approval is being requested for graduation as well when you seek their approval.
>If it's not being maintained, ask the webmaster to mark the repository as >archived. I will do that. >We started a discussion a while ago about moving archived >repositories to an "eclipse-attic" organization (Bug 516014). >Do you think we should move this repository there? As there is no more interest in it I suppose we can. Just by curiosity, what happen if some users are interested again on it ? I mean currently a user can open an issue on this repo to discuss about this but If I well understand this is not possible in "eclipse-attic" ?
> Just by curiosity, what happen if some users are interested again on it ? I > mean currently a user can open an issue on this repo to discuss about this > but If I well understand this is not possible in "eclipse-attic" ? I'm pretty sure that when a repository is marked as archived, you can't create issues on it. If you think that there is any potential that somebody could show up, then maybe just leave it.
leshan.osgi archived : https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=561162
@Wayne about changing license. I'm a bit lost ... 1. should I still use dual licensing and change my header like : # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the # terms of the Eclipse Public License v. 2.0 which is available at # http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0, # or the Eclipse Distribution License v. 1.0 which is available at # http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php. # # SPDX-License-Identifier: EPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause Or EPL-2.0 replace both license ? 2. If both License must be used should I modify the text : >"This Source Code may also be made available under the following >Secondary Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth >in the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0 are satisfied: {name license(s), >version(s), and exceptions or additional permissions here}." With something like : >"This Source Code may also be made available under the following >Secondary Licenses when the conditions for such availability set forth >in the Eclipse Public License, v. 2.0 are satisfied: EDL-1.0" ?
> 1. should I still use dual licensing and change my header like : > > # This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the > # terms of the Eclipse Public License v. 2.0 which is available at > # http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0, > # or the Eclipse Distribution License v. 1.0 which is available at > # http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php. > # > # SPDX-License-Identifier: EPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause Yes > Or EPL-2.0 replace both license ? No. These are different licenses. You can update the EPL-1.0 to the EPL-2.0, but leave the other one. > 2. If both License must be used should I modify the text : No. Do not modify the license text. FYI, the EDL is not a secondary license. The FAQ [1] has some insights. [1] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.it3upld1gcpe
I created a PR for EPL upgrade : https://github.com/eclipse/leshan/pull/823 This will be merged for the 1.0.0 release.
I think we are good now. Just missing the PMC approval ? (https://www.eclipse.org/lists/iot-pmc/msg06975.html)
PMC approval: https://www.eclipse.org/lists/iot-pmc/msg07074.html
I declare this review successful! Please continue with your release.
Hi, This is maybe "normal" but Eclipse Leshan project is still considering as "incubating" ? Should I do something more ? > https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/iot.leshan
It was an oversight. Fixed.
