Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <43FA6CC9.3030804@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 02:28:41 +0100
From: Sylvain Wallez <sylvain@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Macintosh/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.1.9
References: <43FA3070.90400@dslextreme.com> <43FA4012.80804@apache.org>
 <43FA52B6.30808@dslextreme.com>
In-Reply-To: <43FA52B6.30808@dslextreme.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ralph Goers wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>> Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> The forms block is now marked stable.
>>
>> Ahem, I just rewrote the whole Ajax stuff with Dojo and would like 
>> people to test if it works well. I also have some pending changes for 
>> new features that'll be ready this week.
> Isn't Dojo part of the Ajax block?  That is still unstable.  How long 
> would you like to wait for this?

The Ajax features of CForms depend on the Ajax block. What we need is 
testing these features that just have been rewritten.

>>> I believe legal has given the OK for us to use the JCR api.
>>
>> Quoting Roy: "Those terms [the API's licence] are sufficient to 
>> redistribute the JCR jar as part of a compliant and tested 
>> implementation" and "The JCR API, in contrast, will either already be 
>> present in the J2SE engine (with or without an implementation) or 
>> must be downloaded and installed by the user".
>>
>> Although we can solve this issue in 2.2 with Maven, can we consider 
>> that we redistribute the JCR API as part of our redistribution of 
>> Jackrabbit?
> I believe the alternatives that were mentioned were to either get the 
> OK from legal or not deliver the jcr block as part of the release.  If 
> the answer above means you don't feel we have permission than the 
> release should go out without JCR.

The API can be redistributed with an implementation, and we do 
redistribute the implementation. Does this give use the permission to 
redistribute the API with the implementation? IANAL and I don't know...

>>> To the best of my recollection I believe those were the only two 
>>> items standing in the way of a 2.1.9 release.  So please vote.
>>
>> -0.9 (won't veto it, but seems premature to me)
> What happened to "release often"?  It is now 3 months since 2.1.8.

That's why I won't veto it if people are willing to release, even if I 
personally find it premature.

Sylvain

-- 
Sylvain Wallez                        Anyware Technologies
http://bluxte.net                     http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member     Research & Technology Director