directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <>
Subject RE: RE: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
Date Tue, 04 Jan 2005 22:38:56 GMT
Quoting Phil Steitz <>:

> As a point of clarification, the full javadoc is included in the binary
> naming dist.  It is, however, divided among the maven subprojects under the
> /docs directory, which is a full image of the web site.  I agree with Steve
> that full javadoc should be provided as part of the release dist. 

I agree for the binary, not for the source. If you are getting the source dist
and are using Maven/Ant to build it, you can do likewise for the javadoc (does
the ant script contain a goal for that?)

> To release naming, however, we need consensus on the issue raised in my
> previous post to this thread:  are we going to release "components" from the
> Directory project at this time?  If the answer is "no" we need to hold off
> releasing naming from this project.  

At least from my POV in the last email, and what appears to be the general
consensus is that it is a "no" to the new components, but "yes" to naming as it
is different.

- naming is mature
- it has 3 people across it here and presumably the current Tomcat maintainers
could be encouraged to join in here if we are getting this release put back into
the latest Tomcat to replace their naming code from which it was derived
- it is useful standalone, as well as inside Tomcat and TSFKAE

> Assuming the answer is "yes" I would
> also like to get review and support from the tomcat community (where almost
> all of the code originated) before release.  In any case, I want to settle
> the question about components before we release one.

I think it is time we started an individual vote on naming to see where everyone
stands. The directory server can have its own after Alex's questions about how
to bundle the release is addressed.

Would you like to kick off the vote based on the previous one? All issues
brought up since by myself and Steven seem to have been addressed (assuming we
agree on the location of javadoc, and the license has indeed been fixed).


View raw message