From dev-return-24830-apmail-directory-dev-archive=directory.apache.org@directory.apache.org Thu Apr 03 14:30:57 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 96848 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2008 14:30:57 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Apr 2008 14:30:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 61568 invoked by uid 500); 3 Apr 2008 14:30:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 61515 invoked by uid 500); 3 Apr 2008 14:30:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 61504 invoked by uid 99); 3 Apr 2008 14:30:56 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:30:56 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of pajbam@gmail.com designates 209.85.162.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.162.180] (HELO el-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.162.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:30:14 +0000 Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id o28so1657728ele.3 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:30:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=MwTzfEyfsKdFnB2a6dleA29hQw9d8iaqaZV8OjdN1fE=; b=Ia1Xp5sjmOPsJ9fnnzC5VvWOw7J99EfoPRVNP+mpijYKepmyDXPKOHBdibRy5PAR2DilqzE0i6oMWPCDHsA0qwZ2RgIyMN9cVtgmZcMH0fXQ6Z1WjuaKeLoXSZZyj3rwtn3WfwMLHR/kA4u7hPcf3lObEEs1+YDn++E8qaShf+Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=S9oobsRCu8vp2Belnz9h3iM/mEsHlM8r6IB+kV8ehjkK+tyjRT27ru/2LWTOtiUzdVbuDz9+YTpE4Fs4iIg920eZLVN4WIFJSuqflhtTYEzVS4m/yZozGJTS8GXmP15I0IZ+WcesSx4X1AAql9d2fMP27/ZVAg2rXC7vjfYFuQM= Received: by 10.141.203.7 with SMTP id f7mr5720578rvq.7.1207233023362; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.192.17 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <98d8c0860804030730o76fe1d43uf65fa39ddcbaeea1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 16:30:23 +0200 From: "Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot" Sender: pajbam@gmail.com To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Directory Studio 1.1.0 In-Reply-To: <98d8c0860804020203v5a5bc226h4779ec1aa9bb9df8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1384_28790873.1207233023333" References: <47EB4C36.8090604@apache.org> <2757F46F-DDC6-40F7-98F2-E9E0E44B532E@yahoo.com> <98d8c0860803310840h2efc1f5laa9ff736962841d0@mail.gmail.com> <9E80458B-B31F-4627-8B27-391F5734D365@yahoo.com> <98d8c0860804020203v5a5bc226h4779ec1aa9bb9df8@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: f9b617d3cd57b26e X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_1384_28790873.1207233023333 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Guys, This vote has been open for a little while now. What should we do about it? Thanks, Pierre-Arnaud On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote: > Hi David, > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:07 PM, David Jencks > wrote: > > > As (in my experience) most process bits of ASF stuff any docs you may > > find are generally wrong and if you ask any collection of old-timers you get > > a different answer from each. However there's been a lot of discussion on > > legal-discuss recently and after a lot of prodding there seems to be > > consensus that: > > - all distribution units need LICENSE and NOTICE files > > - expected svn checkout units form a "distribution" so need to include > > LICENSE and NOTICE files > > - all other LICENSE and NOTICE files can be generated or from svn > > - each LICENSE and NOTICE file refers only to the contents of the > > distribution unit, not anything such as required dependencies that might be > > needed to use it. > > > > Thanks. > We comply with all these rules except for the inclusion of the LICENSE and > NOTICE files at the SVN checkout root. > I'm going to add them. > > > > > .../trunk and ..../branches/1.1.0 since those are what we expect people > > to check out if they want to build it themselves. > > > > Ok, I'm going to add them in both locations. > > > I haven't had time to look at this branch. Is it built with maven? I'm > > not sure if I'll have time to look soon. If you guys are confident that all > > the artifacts have appropriate legal files and there are no snapshots in any > > maven build (if used) I'm happy to change to +0. > > > > Yeah, It is built with Maven. Here are the instructions to build Studio: > http://directory.apache.org/studio/building.html > > Regards, > Pierre-Arnaud > ------=_Part_1384_28790873.1207233023333 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Guys,

This vote has been open for a little while now.

What should we do about it?

Thanks,
Pierre-Arnaud

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa@marcelot.net> wrote:
Hi David,

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:07 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
As (in my experience) most process bits of ASF stuff any docs you may find are generally wrong and if you ask any collection of old-timers you get a different answer from each.  However there's been a lot of discussion on legal-discuss recently and after a lot of prodding there seems to be consensus that:

- all distribution units need LICENSE and NOTICE files
- expected svn checkout units form a "distribution" so need to include LICENSE and NOTICE files
- all other LICENSE and NOTICE files can be generated or from svn
- each LICENSE and NOTICE file refers only to the contents of the distribution unit, not anything such as required dependencies that might be needed to use it.

Thanks.
We comply with all these rules except for the inclusion of the LICENSE and NOTICE files at the SVN checkout root.
I'm going to add them.

 
.../trunk and ..../branches/1.1.0 since those are what we expect people to check out if they want to build it themselves.
 
Ok, I'm going to add them in both locations.


I haven't had time to look at this branch.  Is it built with maven?  I'm not sure if I'll have time to look soon.  If you guys are confident that all the artifacts have appropriate legal files and there are no snapshots in any maven build (if used) I'm happy to change to +0.

Yeah, It is built with Maven. Here are the instructions to build Studio: http://directory.apache.org/studio/building.html

Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud

------=_Part_1384_28790873.1207233023333--