Mailing-List: contact directory-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List"
 <directory-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
From: "Stephen McConnell" <mcconnell@apache.org>
To: "'Apache Directory Developers List'" <directory-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: RE: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 08:31:03 +1030
Message-ID: <004701c4f2a8$e2cf23f0$0a01a8c0@gloria>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <20050104192148.PTAL2042.imf18aec.mail.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net>
Importance: Normal


Alex:

Just for clarification - my vote is not a veto (release votes are
typically majority based votes). It's simply a "-1" together with
comments.

Cheers, Steve.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Karasulu [mailto:aok123@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: 05 January 2005 05:52
> To: Apache Directory Developers List
> Subject: Re: RE: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
> 
> Excuse my late response to recent messages on this thread - I've been
out
> of pocket.
> 
> 
> WRT Steve's comments, I fixed the license issues a couple days ago, 15
> minutes after he noticed the problem to be exact.  As for Javadocs,
naming
> is a JNDI provider and any Javadocs would be on internal classes and
> interfaces.  The exposed API is the JNDI, which is documented in the
Jdk
> docs.  However providing javadocs on these internal classes on the
site
> and in the distro are a plus.  IMO this should not prevent the release
> though.  Also note Steve, that being in the incubator does not prevent
us
> from releasing: it just imposes stricter criteria.
> 
> Now WRT the other issues concerning the release of internal packages I
can
> still go both ways but am leaning now more towards keeping it simple
with
> the core products.  I think Brett's commentary pulled me over.
Although
> no one cast a veto with -0 votes on this matter these opinions are
very
> important.  Brett, Noel, Nicola, Roy, and you Phil made some excellent
> points and you guys are much more experienced here than I.  This is
where
> one must just concede to the wisdom of others and the consensus of the
> community.  So with that said I'm on board with the external release
of
> the server and naming.  Other API's can be managed as internal
releases
> like with Cocoon as Nicola pointed out which has several jars
composing
> the server.
> 
> To summarize we have several +1s and the consensus to only release our
> core products.  However Steve does have a veto and this must be
addressed.
> 
> After the responses to your veto Steve are you willing to retract it?
> Otherwise we're still in limbo here :).   Personally I'd like to get
on
> with development and there is sooo much to do.
> 
> Thanks much,
> Alex
> 
> >
> > From: "Stephen McConnell" <mcconnell@apache.org>
> > Date: 2005/01/04 Tue AM 09:21:51 EST
> > To: "'Apache Directory Developers List'" <directory-
> dev@incubator.apache.org>
> > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
> >
> > Assumption is correct.
> >
> > Steve.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil@steitz.com]
> > Sent: 05 January 2005 00:45
> > To: Apache Directory Developers List
> > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
> >
> > I assume comments below are about the candidate [naming] dist.
Thanks.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:bloritsch@d-haven.org]
> > Sent: Tue 1/4/2005 6:47 AM
> > To: Apache Directory Developers List
> > Cc: vtence@videotron.ca
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
> > Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >
> > >[ ] +1 Approve the request to release
> > >[x] -1 Reject the request to release
> > >[ ] +0 Abstain
> > >
> > >1. wrong license in distribution
> > >
> > >
> > It's not the ASL 2.0?  We need to fix that.  Where did you notice
the
> > ASL 2.0 license missing?
> > psteitz: That is my fault.  The licenses in the source were changed
last
> > year, as was license.xml, but I must have missed LICENSE.txt.  Alex
> fixed it
> > in svn and I fixed the candidate distro last night.
> >
> > >2. no javadoc package in the dist
> > psteitz: The javadoc is in the binary dist only.  Could be added to
> source.
> >
> > >3. directory has not exited incubator and so long as this project
> > >   is in incubator it isn't real
> > >
> > >
> > At this point in the game I don't think either of these are a
blocker.
> > Think of it as an early access release.
> >
> > --
> >
> > "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
> build
> > bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to
> produce
> > bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
> >                 - Rich Cook
> >
> >