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: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of aok123@bellsouth.net
 designates 205.152.59.66 as permitted sender)
From: Alex Karasulu <aok123@bellsouth.net>
Organization: Solarsis Group
To: "Apache Directory Developers List"
 <directory-dev@incubator.apache.org>,Apache Directory Developers List
 <directory-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: RE: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:08:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: 
 <20050104230841.VLUC2042.imf18aec.mail.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net>

I second what Brett has said completely.

> 
> From: Brett Porter <brett@apache.org>
> Date: 2005/01/04 Tue PM 05:38:56 EST
> To: Apache Directory Developers List <directory-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: RE: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
> 
> Quoting Phil Steitz <phil@steitz.com>:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> reasons:
> - 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).
> 
> Cheers,
> Brett
> 
>